Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Issa]

Dude, you have no idea what exists outside of California. NO CLUE.

She's pretty much a lefty idiot. In case you haven't noticed.

Dum ass Issa is not a female name...it means jesus in Arabic you ****.

I don't know that she thought your name was feminine; I think she just thought YOU seemed kinda womanish.

Yup. Issa sounds like a female name.

Since I don't speak Arabic who knew.

Issa sure is an idiot though.

Does it.
Ever hear the name "Yeshua"? or its similar form, "Jesus"? See the similarities?

How ironic that this comes up right next to a troll calling himself "Marion".




Don't speak Arabic eh? Ever use coffee? With sugar? or al-cohol? How 'bout.... caravan?

Well said...
And she probably as a conservative doesnt know we muslims love Issa (Jesus) and the virgin mary....there is lot of ignorance amongst the conservatives, and that's why bigotry and racism thrives in their ranks unfortunately.

 

[Auld Phart]

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

Read up on what the Federal Republic designed by the Framers was designed to protect and then get back to us.

Or speak to my point.

How many presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote?

5

Quincy Adams 1824
Polk 1844
Taylor 1848
Buchanan 1856
Lincoln 1860
Garfield 1880
Cleveland 1884 and 1892
Wilson 1912 and 1916
Truman 1948
JFK 1960
Nixon 1968
Clinton 1992
Bush 2000
Rump 2016

Won electoral vote without winning Popular vote:

5

JQ Adams
Harrison
Hayes
Bush
Trump

 

[boedicca]

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

Robespierre is chuckling in Hell.

Actually that's George Orwell. He never dreamed nightmared that Doublethink would take off to this degree.

"Mob rule" is a ludicrous construct on its face. The whole purpose of ANY election, whether it's for President, Mayor, dogcatcher or whether we should all wear cheese wedges on our heads, is to determine what the MAJORITY wants. If after the vote said majority has decided that no, we should not wear cheese wedges on our heads, then it makes NO sense to begin wearing said cheese wedges on the basis that NOT to do so would be acceding to what the vote said and therefore "mob rule". That's utterly absurd, and always has been. May as well quit trying to sell it, as no one is buying this brand of Doublethink.

The fact that all sides have agreed to proceed on the basis of a vote means that what happens as a result CANNOT be "mob rule". Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious but that's what it is and always was.

No, I meant Robespierre for a reason. The French Reign of Terror is being re-enacted by the Dem-Progs and their AntiFa thug vanguard, with a big assist by the Surveillance Media.

And I meant Orwell for a reason, which I already delineated.

Thank me later.

Yeah, no.

 

[Redfish]

I agree with you on eliminating the party labels on the ballot.

I also understand why you want the ghetto areas of the big cities to decide who is president. those votes are much easier to buy.

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

But you think everyone in Cal, TX, NY and FL vote the same way or something?
I don't think that's true. I sure don't see how the EC is supposed to give states equal representation, since my state gets 4 and California gets 55. As a matter of fact, the states you listed are the 4 states with the most electoral votes.
So how does that make Maine equal with California, again? Somehow, I don't think it had anything to do with making it equal. That's the Senate's job.

you explained it and you don't even realize that you did, Cal has more people than several other states combined. the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population. the founders foresaw a situation where the more populous states could gang up on the smaller states and virtually vote them out of any say in the federal government.

I am sorry that you and gator don't understand that, its relatively simple.

 

[Redfish]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Try it in Canada then eh.

Your reasoning makes no sense. The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Take the same concept and apply it to a state (or province). Does the "media concentration in Omaha" use control and high population to win Nebraska elections year after year? Please.

Yeah it was designed with "careful thought and consideration" for the slaveholders of the 1700s.

The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Yeah? I guess that means Russian adds also had no effect. Glad we can agree on that.

Russian "adds"? Pray, what did Russia "add"?

You can tell the Russians here by their tenuous command of English.

Care to address the actual post, tovarich?

In your sig clip, that you are so proud of, the lady in the red dress is merely being polite by shaking hands with Melania first. its not a snub, no matter how you wish it was.

your bias and hate has made you stupid, are you related to Acosta?

 

[candycorn]

No. The EC is one of the best ideas we’ve come up with. I would prefer the President Elect be required to win both the EC as well as the PV. I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well. Anything short of winning all 3 of those tallies; the House decides.

I would change the entire election system as well but thats not the question before us.

I would change it too.
I would make sure that Democrats couldn't count the votes anywhere. The counting would either be done by some trustworthy unbiased group randomly selected the day of the election so know one will know who is counting, or all done by PC to a central computer to remove the human element and the totals not announced till the winner was decided.
All voting machines would use retinal scanners eliminating multiple votes by the same person and prevent ballot box stuffing.

Questioning the Democrats trustworthiness while your blob lies to your face constantly is hilarious. Retinal scanners? Ok with that.

 

[Pogo]

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

But you think everyone in Cal, TX, NY and FL vote the same way or something?
I don't think that's true. I sure don't see how the EC is supposed to give states equal representation, since my state gets 4 and California gets 55. As a matter of fact, the states you listed are the 4 states with the most electoral votes.
So how does that make Maine equal with California, again? Somehow, I don't think it had anything to do with making it equal. That's the Senate's job.

you explained it and you don't even realize that you did, Cal has more people than several other states combined. the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population. the founders foresaw a situation where the more populous states could gang up on the smaller states and virtually vote them out of any say in the federal government.

I am sorry that you and gator don't understand that, its relatively simple.

The irony here:

"the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population"

--- is that this is literally what a straight popular vote would do. Without a middleman. And it would do it more effectively. In the case I cited of my own state that gave all of its 15 EVs to Rump even though he got less than 50% of the voters' votes, where I said it would have been more honest to award 8 EVs to Rump and 7 to Clinton, that still would not count the votes for Stein, Johnson et al. But a popular vote would.

Furthermore, as I pointed out directly to you and AFAIK you had no response, simply knowing that the vote would be taken that way would change the whole character of the vote, since now voters for a third (fourth, fifth, etc) party would actually count for something, and the Duopoly forcing most of the electorate to vote against one to block the other, would be eliminated.

 

[Pogo]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Try it in Canada then eh.

Your reasoning makes no sense. The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Take the same concept and apply it to a state (or province). Does the "media concentration in Omaha" use control and high population to win Nebraska elections year after year? Please.

Yeah it was designed with "careful thought and consideration" for the slaveholders of the 1700s.

The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Yeah? I guess that means Russian adds also had no effect. Glad we can agree on that.

Russian "adds"? Pray, what did Russia "add"?

You can tell the Russians here by their tenuous command of English.

Care to address the actual post, tovarich?

In your sig clip, that you are so proud of, the lady in the red dress is merely being polite by shaking hands with Melania first. its not a snub, no matter how you wish it was.

your bias and hate has made you stupid, are you related to Acosta?

-- Also doesn't address the post but I'm happy to expound on it.

In my sig pic, the focus is not on Maria Piłsudska. She's not doing anything unusual, nor did I describe it as a 'snub'. The focus is on Rump and his reaction. Don't watch her --- watch him. Hope this helps.

 

[Pogo]

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

Read up on what the Federal Republic designed by the Framers was designed to protect and then get back to us.

Or speak to my point.

How many presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote?

5

Quincy Adams 1824
Polk 1844
Taylor 1848
Buchanan 1856
Lincoln 1860
Garfield 1880
Cleveland 1884 and 1892
Wilson 1912 and 1916
Truman 1948
JFK 1960
Nixon 1968
Clinton 1992
Bush 2000
Rump 2016

Won electoral vote without winning Popular vote:

5

JQ Adams
Harrison
Hayes
Bush
Trump

I stand corrected sir. I did leave out Hayes and B Harrison. I plead sloppy research.

So the revised list would be:

Quincy Adams 1824
Polk 1844
Taylor 1848
Buchanan 1856
Lincoln 1860
Hayes 1876
Garfield 1880
Cleveland 1884 and 1892
(B) Harrison 1888
Wilson 1912 and 1916
Truman 1948
JFK 1960
Nixon 1968
Clinton 1992
Bush 2000
Rump 2016

I get 16 elections including five consecutive ones.

 

[Doc1]

She's pretty much a lefty idiot. In case you haven't noticed.

Dum ass Issa is not a female name...it means jesus in Arabic you ****.

I don't know that she thought your name was feminine; I think she just thought YOU seemed kinda womanish.

Yup. Issa sounds like a female name.

Since I don't speak Arabic who knew.

Issa sure is an idiot though.

Does it.
Ever hear the name "Yeshua"? or its similar form, "Jesus"? See the similarities?

How ironic that this comes up right next to a troll calling himself "Marion".




Don't speak Arabic eh? Ever use coffee? With sugar? or al-cohol? How 'bout.... caravan?

Well said...
And she probably as a conservative doesnt know we muslims love Issa (Jesus) and the virgin mary....there is lot of ignorance amongst the conservatives, and that's why bigotry and racism thrives in their ranks unfortunately.

Loving Jesus doesn't matter, who you say He is is what matters.

 

[Bush92]

States rights. Electoral College is great. There is a popular vote in each state. Democrats like to steal these votes however as we have seen in Arizona, Florida and Georgia in 2018.

 

[justoffal]

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

Robespierre is chuckling in Hell.

Actually that's George Orwell. He never dreamed nightmared that Doublethink would take off to this degree.

"Mob rule" is a ludicrous construct on its face. The whole purpose of ANY election, whether it's for President, Mayor, dogcatcher or whether we should all wear cheese wedges on our heads, is to determine what the MAJORITY wants. If after the vote said majority has decided that no, we should not wear cheese wedges on our heads, then it makes NO sense to begin wearing said cheese wedges on the basis that NOT to do so would be acceding to what the vote said and therefore "mob rule". That's utterly absurd, and always has been. May as well quit trying to sell it, as no one is buying this brand of Doublethink.

The fact that all sides have agreed to proceed on the basis of a vote means that what happens as a result CANNOT be "mob rule". Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious but that's what it is and always was.

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Elections are 'mob rule'"

CHEESES.

so, if the majority of people are fine with the system the way it is, then "mob rules" and we leave it alone. it would also mean a majority of people disagree with you and YOUR doublethink.

For Lefty losing is never an option....
They will all shut the hell up when one of theirs wins that way.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

Robespierre is chuckling in Hell.

Actually that's George Orwell. He never dreamed nightmared that Doublethink would take off to this degree.

"Mob rule" is a ludicrous construct on its face. The whole purpose of ANY election, whether it's for President, Mayor, dogcatcher or whether we should all wear cheese wedges on our heads, is to determine what the MAJORITY wants. If after the vote said majority has decided that no, we should not wear cheese wedges on our heads, then it makes NO sense to begin wearing said cheese wedges on the basis that NOT to do so would be acceding to what the vote said and therefore "mob rule". That's utterly absurd, and always has been. May as well quit trying to sell it, as no one is buying this brand of Doublethink.

The fact that all sides have agreed to proceed on the basis of a vote means that what happens as a result CANNOT be "mob rule". Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious but that's what it is and always was.

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Elections are 'mob rule'"

CHEESES.

so, if the majority of people are fine with the system the way it is, then "mob rules" and we leave it alone. it would also mean a majority of people disagree with you and YOUR doublethink.

For Lefty losing is never an option....
They will all shut the hell up when one of theirs wins that way.

Jo

You'll notice he doesn't explain what my alleged 'doublethink' is.

I suspect the term is over his head. Should have been required reading.

 

[Bush92]

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

Robespierre is chuckling in Hell.

Actually that's George Orwell. He never dreamed nightmared that Doublethink would take off to this degree.

"Mob rule" is a ludicrous construct on its face. The whole purpose of ANY election, whether it's for President, Mayor, dogcatcher or whether we should all wear cheese wedges on our heads, is to determine what the MAJORITY wants. If after the vote said majority has decided that no, we should not wear cheese wedges on our heads, then it makes NO sense to begin wearing said cheese wedges on the basis that NOT to do so would be acceding to what the vote said and therefore "mob rule". That's utterly absurd, and always has been. May as well quit trying to sell it, as no one is buying this brand of Doublethink.

The fact that all sides have agreed to proceed on the basis of a vote means that what happens as a result CANNOT be "mob rule". Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious but that's what it is and always was.

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Elections are 'mob rule'"

CHEESES.

so, if the majority of people are fine with the system the way it is, then "mob rules" and we leave it alone. it would also mean a majority of people disagree with you and YOUR doublethink.

For Lefty losing is never an option....
They will all shut the hell up when one of theirs wins that way.

Jo

They want NYC, Chicago, and LA to elect our president.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We are 50 separate country's United , that's what you can never comprehend

Ironically enough this addressed nothing about what I just posted, so tell us about inability to comprehend.

We have been arguing about it for years and you have yet to acknowledge the damn fact we are 50 separate country's United...most everyone the world over knows Texas , California or flordia.


Not many people know what the hell Hokkaido is or frickin wurzburg

We have been arguing about it for five minutes and I haven't acknowledged it for two reasons --- one, it has nothing to do with what I have posted above, and two, even if [country's] were an actual word, we would NOT be 50 separate ones of them.

B.S. it's been at least 2 years we have been arguing about this and you will never acknowledge the fact we are 50 separate country's ..United


You want to think people have the same values all over America but we don't...a huge difference between a queer in San Francisco and a redneck in Georgia .

Bull The **** Shit. I've opined no such thing, ever. Find me a quote and prove me wrong or admit you can't do it and you pulled it out of your ass.

You search for it, this is like the 50 thread on the subject where you claim people are the same across America.


That's like saying Germans are the same as Portuguese..the Italians are the same as brits

 

[mudwhistle]

No. The EC is one of the best ideas we’ve come up with. I would prefer the President Elect be required to win both the EC as well as the PV. I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well. Anything short of winning all 3 of those tallies; the House decides.

I would change the entire election system as well but thats not the question before us.

I would change it too.
I would make sure that Democrats couldn't count the votes anywhere. The counting would either be done by some trustworthy unbiased group randomly selected the day of the election so know one will know who is counting, or all done by PC to a central computer to remove the human element and the totals not announced till the winner was decided.
All voting machines would use retinal scanners eliminating multiple votes by the same person and prevent ballot box stuffing.

Questioning the Democrats trustworthiness while your blob lies to your face constantly is hilarious. Retinal scanners? Ok with that.

I take it for what it's worth.
Trump makes a statement and immediately hundreds if not thousands of Democrats in the media start picking it apart.
Then they put their spin on it when they can't find any inaccuracies.
I just find it difficult to believe that a rational person would believe the media or believe Democrats after decades of lying to us.
So in the end, I look at the results.

When Democrats are in charge everything seems to go to shit.
Now that Trump is running the White House the economy is doing great, so the Democrats scream that we must stop it..(all of the prosperity). They want to take their crumbs back. We have to start thinking the way they want us to or they'll attack us wherever we go.

You are either willfully ignorant or just a friggen retard.

 

[candycorn]

No. The EC is one of the best ideas we’ve come up with. I would prefer the President Elect be required to win both the EC as well as the PV. I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well. Anything short of winning all 3 of those tallies; the House decides.

I would change the entire election system as well but thats not the question before us.

I would change it too.
I would make sure that Democrats couldn't count the votes anywhere. The counting would either be done by some trustworthy unbiased group randomly selected the day of the election so know one will know who is counting, or all done by PC to a central computer to remove the human element and the totals not announced till the winner was decided.
All voting machines would use retinal scanners eliminating multiple votes by the same person and prevent ballot box stuffing.

Questioning the Democrats trustworthiness while your blob lies to your face constantly is hilarious. Retinal scanners? Ok with that.

I take it for what it's worth.
Trump makes a statement and immediately hundreds if not thousands of Democrats in the media start picking it apart.
Then they put their spin on it when they can't find any inaccuracies.
I just find it difficult to believe that a rational person would believe the media or believe Democrats after decades of lying to us.
So in the end, I look at the results.

When Democrats are in charge everything seems to go to shit.
Now that Trump is running the White House the economy is doing great, so the Democrats scream that we must stop it..(all of the prosperity). They want to take their crumbs back. We have to start thinking the way they want us to or they'll attack us wherever we go.

You are either willfully ignorant or just a friggen retard.

Facts are this. The GOP is in charge of the voting procedures in Florida and in Arizona.

The Trump dick suckers like you Shirley are the only ones unaware of the daily lie fest coming out of his White House

 

[JoeB131]

It's not a problem if you live in the smaller state, jackass.

Yeah, it kind of is... How much time did any candidate spend campaigning in Wyoming last cycle?

You're not smarter or better than the Founding Fathers, no, you're not.

I'm much better than the Founding Slave Rapists... to start with, I think Slavery is absolutely wrong. I'm probably smarter, by virtue of the fact I don't think bleeding is a good treatment for Strep Throat....

 

[JoeB131]

/——/ Facts are boring? We’ll should just take your word on everything. And just because you’re registered to one party does mean that vote is locked in. Dems voted for Trump and some are pubs voted for Hildabeast.

Actually, Trump got the same percentage of the vote that Romney and McCain did. So, um, no. You can speculate all you want, I go by the numbers.

What killed Hillary is that after 25 years of telling people she was "corrupt", too many people voted third party because she "had it in the bag".

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ Facts are boring? We’ll should just take your word on everything. And just because you’re registered to one party does mean that vote is locked in. Dems voted for Trump and some are pubs voted for Hildabeast.

Actually, Trump got the same percentage of the vote that Romney and McCain did. So, um, no. You can speculate all you want, I go by the numbers.

What killed Hillary is that after 25 years of telling people she was "corrupt", too many people voted third party because she "had it in the bag".

/----/ You're not going by the numbers - you said "percentage" which is misleading because of population growth and how many voted. Go speculate that. BTW you're right on Hildabeast's loss.