New DNC President Demostrates Democrats Spew Ignorance and Lies (Electoral College)

[KatieK]

If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?

Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.

yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..

and all have a say in his election

No, the states don't elect the president, the people do, in a representative democracy that is.

 

[Auld Phart]

Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....

Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.

Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.

No one is crying about it. And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution. Soon.

NOt likely

Just a matter of time.

neither of us will be alive when/if that happens.

I doubt it will happen in my great great grandchildrens time.

 

[KatieK]

The one with the most votes shouldn't win? Not what you said.

Let's play a game with that though. The Electoral College votes for 200 for A and 101 for B but the Supreme Court says no, the votes of those who voted for B count as two votes each so B wins. Fair or unfair?

when did the Supreme court say that?


It's nonsense

It's hypothetical. It requires thinking. Go back to sleep, Moderator.

hypothetical...

a lie with no background

If you had thought, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement

Child, since you want to play, do you have a fair election if some votes count more than others, yes or no?

They don't count more than others.

who fed you that crap?

They absolutely do. Just the Senate itself shows the system is broken. Iowa gets two votes just like Texas? Idiotic.

 

[Auld Phart]

If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?

Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.

yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..

and all have a say in his election

No, the states don't elect the president, the people do, in a representative democracy that is.

in a representative democracy that is.

if you want that to happen, you need to move to one

 

[KatieK]

Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.

Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.

No one is crying about it. And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution. Soon.

NOt likely

Just a matter of time.

neither of us will be alive when/if that happens.

I doubt it will happen in my great great grandchildrens time.

You can doubt whatever you like the US cannot withstand several events that are just around the corner. The control, what there is of it, will go local when the anarchy starts.

 

[KatieK]

If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?

Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.

yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..

and all have a say in his election

No, the states don't elect the president, the people do, in a representative democracy that is.

in a representative democracy that is.

if you want that to happen, you need to move to one

Plans are always in the works, TY. You could send large checks, that would speed up the process?

 

[Auld Phart]

when did the Supreme court say that?


It's nonsense

It's hypothetical. It requires thinking. Go back to sleep, Moderator.

hypothetical...

a lie with no background

If you had thought, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement

Child, since you want to play, do you have a fair election if some votes count more than others, yes or no?

They don't count more than others.

who fed you that crap?

They absolutely do. Just the Senate itself shows the system is broken. Iowa gets two votes just like Texas? Idiotic.

the senate?

Do you know ANYTHING about the government?

The senate, 2 members from each state, to make it fair.

the House, based on population, to make it representative

Go back to mid-school, learn what you're talking about

 

[Auld Phart]

Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.

No one is crying about it. And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution. Soon.

NOt likely

Just a matter of time.

neither of us will be alive when/if that happens.

I doubt it will happen in my great great grandchildrens time.

You can doubt whatever you like the US cannot withstand several events that are just around the corner. The control, what there is of it, will go local when the anarchy starts.

You're hilarious

 

[KatieK]

It's hypothetical. It requires thinking. Go back to sleep, Moderator.

hypothetical...

a lie with no background

If you had thought, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement

Child, since you want to play, do you have a fair election if some votes count more than others, yes or no?

They don't count more than others.

who fed you that crap?

They absolutely do. Just the Senate itself shows the system is broken. Iowa gets two votes just like Texas? Idiotic.

the senate?

Do you know ANYTHING about the government?

The senate, 2 members from each state, to make it fair.

the House, based on population, to make it representative

Go back to mid-school, learn what you're talking about

There is nothing fair about a tiny state having two votes and a massive state also having two votes. As with the Electoral College that is undemocratic.

 

[Auld Phart]

If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?

Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.

yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..

and all have a say in his election

No, the states don't elect the president, the people do, in a representative democracy that is.

in a representative democracy that is.

if you want that to happen, you need to move to one

Plans are always in the works, TY. You could send large checks, that would speed up the process?

if you're sending large checks to speed it along,

someone is conning a very stupid person

 

[KatieK]

No one is crying about it. And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution. Soon.

NOt likely

Just a matter of time.

neither of us will be alive when/if that happens.

I doubt it will happen in my great great grandchildrens time.

You can doubt whatever you like the US cannot withstand several events that are just around the corner. The control, what there is of it, will go local when the anarchy starts.

You're hilarious

And you're an idiot so what?

 

[KatieK]

Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.

yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..

and all have a say in his election

No, the states don't elect the president, the people do, in a representative democracy that is.

in a representative democracy that is.

if you want that to happen, you need to move to one

Plans are always in the works, TY. You could send large checks, that would speed up the process?

if you're sending large checks to speed it along,

someone is conning a very stupid person

No, idiot, you send me large checks and I'll leave sooner.

 

[Auld Phart]

You're unofficially on ignore...

come back when you get a clue about the government

 

[Dr Grump]

Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.

I'm not American. And if you can be bothered (not that you should be), go back over the years on here (and yes, even when Obama won) and you'll see I've been saying the same thing.

 

[Dr Grump]

It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.

There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.

It is a form of democracy. Your last point is on the money. However, some have better forms of govt than others.

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you know ANYTHING about the government?

The senate, 2 members from each state, to make it fair.

the House, based on population, to make it representative

Go back to mid-school, learn what you're talking about

But it's not representative. I'm not doing the maths yet again on this board. Take out the two Senate EC votes for each state and you'll that an EC vote in say NH or Alaska is worth more than one in Texas or California. IOW, those people born in the more populated states are disenfranchised.

 

[Leo123]

But it's not representative. I'm not doing the maths yet again on this board. Take out the two Senate EC votes for each state and you'll that an EC vote in say NH or Alaska is worth more than one in Texas or California. IOW, those people born in the more populated states are disenfranchised.

It IS representative. When you vote it is the ELECTORS that you vote for even though the candidate's name is on the ballot. Your chosen candidate REPRESENTS electors. It is 100% representative. We DO NOT have a true Democracy...never did.

 

[Dr Grump]

It IS representative. When you vote it is the ELECTORS that you vote for even though the candidate's name is on the ballot. Your chosen candidate REPRESENTS electors. It is 100% representative. We DO NOT have a true Democracy...never did.

How can it be representative when an Alaskan vote is worth more than that of a Californian or Texan. And yes, I know you wing nuts really really hate it, but your are a democracy and a republic. You're using the definition of democracy as it relates to one person one vote and first past the post etc. The term has a lot wider meaning.

 

[Leo123]

It IS representative. When you vote it is the ELECTORS that you vote for even though the candidate's name is on the ballot. Your chosen candidate REPRESENTS electors. It is 100% representative. We DO NOT have a true Democracy...never did.

How can it be representative when an Alaskan vote is worth more than that of a Californian or Texan. And yes, I know you wing nuts really really hate it, but your are a democracy and a republic. You're using the definition of democracy as it relates to one person one vote and first past the post etc. The term has a lot wider meaning.

One person one vote was established to equalize voting power within States. Challenges have been made over the years but SCOTUS upheld its original decision. The electoral college is another issue.

"The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."

In Defense of the Electoral College

Do you understand it is unfair to have a President elected by LA & New York? That would disenfranchise most of geographic America.

 

[Dr Grump]

One person one vote was established to equalize voting power within States. Challenges have been made over the years but SCOTUS upheld its original decision. The electoral college is another issue.

"The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."

In Defense of the Electoral College

Do you understand it is unfair to have a President elected by LA & New York? That would disenfranchise most of geographic America.

That's not even my point. An election should represent all the people, no matter where they are from. So in other words, just because you happen to live in a more populous state your vote should mean less to say, somebody living in Delaware? You guys talk about the tyranny of the majority. What about the tyranny of the minority?