Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

Yes it's a convenient escape hatch, posting links to sources that can't be accessed and then refusing to quote what it says. Courageous.

As I keep saying, if you can't articulate your point, then you didn't have one.

if you cant open the link, you may have a computer problem. Do a google search on the subject instead of posting juvenile attempts at insults.

Once AGAIN for the slow ---- I can open the link just fine. But when I do I get a page that wants money, and/or gives me a limited and small number of articles I can access each month. And thatt's true for EVERYBODY who hasn't paid them for access.

And I ain't about to pay money just because you can neither articulate your point nor quote the source you want me to read. If you have a point to make, MAKE IT. If they make a point you like, COPY IT. Don't sit here and play games, son. You're wasting my time.

that's weird. I opened it, read it and copied it. Never asked me for money, to subscribe, or anything else. the article took the position that the EC actually protects our elections be giving every locality a voice and preventing the large population states and cities from dominating.

As to articulating my point, I have done that very well several times, if you are too dense to grasp it, there is nothing more I can do.

Apparently there's some reason you're terrified of quoting your own link.

Kind of proves my point, doesn't it.

from the WaPo article: "The electoral college was an integral part of that federal plan. It made a place for the states as well as the people in electing the president by giving them a say at different points in a federal process and preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president."

your refusal to accept a differing opinion from a left wing source brands you as an idiot. congratulations.

That was like pulling teeth.

Now that you finally figured out cut-and-paste, why don't you essplain to the class what "big-city populations" were threatening to dominate the election of a President" at the time --- a time when a popular vote wasn't even being taken.

 

[easyt65]

If the Popular Vote would have been the law Slick Willy would have lost...snowflakes LOVED the Electoral College!

. Bwuhahahaha.....

 

[Pogo]

If the Popular Vote would have been the law Slick Willy would have lost...snowflakes LOVED the Electoral College!

. Bwuhahahaha.....

Ummmm actually no. He won the PV, both times he ran.

I dunno, maybe stuff like "Wikipedia" and "libraries" are beyond the reach of some.

 

[August West]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

 

[August West]

If the Popular Vote would have been the law Slick Willy would have lost...snowflakes LOVED the Electoral College!

. Bwuhahahaha.....

Ummmm actually no. He won the PV, both times he ran.

I dunno, maybe stuff like "Wikipedia" and "libraries" are beyond the reach of some.

They believe that screeching "snowflakes" makes them appear witty and smart. It does neither.

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

In a presidential election there are 50 elections not one. Each state elects the president of their choice. Ergo a large margin in one state does not spill over into the close margin of another state. You can see it as being unfair in the other direction also when one state like California has 54 electoral votes and another like Maine only has two; to count the popular vote across state lines would be to forget why States joined the union in the first place.


Jo

 

[Pogo]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

In a presidential election there are 50 elections not one. Each state elects the president of their choice. Ergo a large margin in one state does not spill over into the close margin of another state. You can see it as being unfair in the other direction also when one state like California has 54 electoral votes and another like Maine only has two; to count the popular vote across state lines would be to forget why States joined the union in the first place.


Jo

For somebody trying to shill for the Electrical College you display an alarming lack of knowledge, as you got BOTH of those states' EV numbers wrong. And it's ironic that you'd pick Maine, one of only two states out of the entire 57 that doesn't cascade all its EVs to the same candy no matter what the state margin is.

That practice ---- WTA, which creates those artificial bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states" (without which those bullshit concepts would not exist), and depresses voter turnout because what's the point, is NOWHERE prescribed in the Constitution. There's literally no reason any state has to do it, and Maine is the exception TO it that proves that. That's why James Madison, one of the original architects of the Electoral College itself, wanted to ban it via Constitutional Amendment. CLEARLY what we have going on is not what the Founders had in mind.

Again to use my own state as a ready example, we get 15 Electoral votes and during the charade we call "Election Day" no candidate got as much as 50% of our votes, and yet our state then went to Congress and told them we had voted for Rump unanimously. Which is an absolute crock. So I submit to you that my state (in this example and plug in any state you like) did NOT vote on its own citizens' behalf. It voted on behalf of the mob mentality of WTA.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

It's my belief that you want the world to accommodate you so that you don't have to inconvenience yourself.

Your vote counts as one person voting in your state, by any measurement. That's all you're entitled to. The fact that YOU chose to live in a state where there are a lot of other people voting, and the fact that you don't think it's fair that they all get the exact same rights you do, is irrelevant.

By your standards - where the world is obligated to give you, personally, more power for some odd reason - your vote also counts for less every time the population increases.

Contemplate the possibility that your view of how voting should work and what the actual goals and promises of voting rights might be in error.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the Popular Vote would have been the law Slick Willy would have lost...snowflakes LOVED the Electoral College!

. Bwuhahahaha.....

Ummmm actually no. He won the PV, both times he ran.

I dunno, maybe stuff like "Wikipedia" and "libraries" are beyond the reach of some.

They believe that screeching "snowflakes" makes them appear witty and smart. It does neither.

Nope. We believe that it just identifies people who are being snowflakes. And it does that just fine.

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

In a presidential election there are 50 elections not one. Each state elects the president of their choice. Ergo a large margin in one state does not spill over into the close margin of another state. You can see it as being unfair in the other direction also when one state like California has 54 electoral votes and another like Maine only has two; to count the popular vote across state lines would be to forget why States joined the union in the first place.


Jo

For somebody trying to shill for the Electrical College you display an alarming lack of knowledge, as you got BOTH of those states' EV numbers wrong. And it's ironic that you'd pick Maine, one of only two states out of the entire 57 that doesn't cascade all its EVs to the same candy no matter what the state margin is.

That practice ---- WTA, which creates those artificial bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states" (without which those bullshit concepts would not exist), and depresses voter turnout because what's the point, is NOWHERE prescribed in the Constitution. There's literally no reason any state has to do it, and Maine is the exception TO it that proves that. That's why James Madison, one of the original architects of the Electoral College itself, wanted to ban it via Constitutional Amendment. CLEARLY what we have going on is not what the Founders had in mind.

Again to use my own state as a ready example, we get 15 Electoral votes and during the charade we call "Election Day" no candidate got as much as 50% of our votes, and yet our state then went to Congress and told them we had voted for Rump unanimously. Which is an absolute crock. So I submit to you that my state (in this example and plug in any state you like) did NOT vote on its own citizens' behalf. It voted on behalf of the mob mentality of WTA.

Oh please .... so I didn't look them up before I quoted them they're close enough to make the point. Despite all the verbose condescension the point remains intact there are 50 elections not one. Jumping all over a numerical mistake doesn't argue against the point....

if you have a complaint about a particular state's process that's your business go to your state legislature and change it.

if you're unable to change it because it lacks support then I submit to you that is the method that will be used because that is the method the people want.

You seem to keep forgetting that this is a union of states not one giant State lacking boundaries. I Keep noticing in the argumentation of those who are anti- EC that they really don't like the idea that states have boundaries.

Additionally your main point is fatally flawed.
You keep bitching about the winner-take-all system and yet you have failed to designate any other kind of winner. Maybe if you spent less time on mockery and more time on reasoning you could compose a logical reply.

You remind me of another poster from a different forum who was fond of those phrases.

Shockingly ignorant
Amazingly unknowledgeable
Hugely inaccurate
Hilariously misguided
Etc...etc

Straight out of the letfy propaganda book 101.

More than anything else such overuse of mocking hyperbole merely highlights insecurity. Unable to argue intelligently on the main point you ankle bite instead.

You didn't like the results of the last election so you attack the process yet what you're looking for is a winner who takes all as long as that winner is one that you have picked yourself.

so I will repeat to you what I have already mentioned to you several times ... there is no other kind of winner except the winner-who-takes-all. It doesn't matter how that person is selected there are always going to be a number of disenfranchised people who feel as though their vote was wasted.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

It's my belief that you want the world to accommodate you so that you don't have to inconvenience yourself.

Your vote counts as one person voting in your state, by any measurement. That's all you're entitled to. The fact that YOU chose to live in a state where there are a lot of other people voting, and the fact that you don't think it's fair that they all get the exact same rights you do, is irrelevant.

By your standards - where the world is obligated to give you, personally, more power for some odd reason - your vote also counts for less every time the population increases.

Contemplate the possibility that your view of how voting should work and what the actual goals and promises of voting rights might be in error.

Good post. I never see them complaining about any of the processes that they win by.
It's always the processes that they lose by that they complain about. In other words like anyone else they don't like to lose.

Your point is spot-on. They seem to feel entitled to choose for the entire nation based on the fact that they live in high population centers. If the rest of the world thought like they do there would be no such thing as a sovereign Nation except for China, Russia, the United States and India. No other Nation would have a right to make any decision for itself based on comparatively small populations.

Our posters who are complaining about individual vote value want to be able to vote in all 50 states at once. It's a damn good thing they can't.

This is the general outline for the political and mental illness known as authoritarianism.



Jo

 

[Pogo]

If the Popular Vote would have been the law Slick Willy would have lost...snowflakes LOVED the Electoral College!

. Bwuhahahaha.....

Ummmm actually no. He won the PV, both times he ran.

I dunno, maybe stuff like "Wikipedia" and "libraries" are beyond the reach of some.

They believe that screeching "snowflakes" makes them appear witty and smart. It does neither.

Nope. We believe that it just identifies people who are being snowflakes. And it does that just fine.

The poster put up a completely and provably false point. DEAL with it.

 

[Pogo]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

It's my belief that you want the world to accommodate you so that you don't have to inconvenience yourself.

Your vote counts as one person voting in your state, by any measurement. That's all you're entitled to. The fact that YOU chose to live in a state where there are a lot of other people voting, and the fact that you don't think it's fair that they all get the exact same rights you do, is irrelevant..

Actually what's irrelevant is your ignoring the entire point and cowardly hiding behind these bullshit memes that can't be substantiated.

For instance --- again --- if a proxy-WTA system is so genius, how come ZERO of the 57 states have ever used any form of it to elect their governor? It's the same thing, in microcosm.

If you missed it, that number was ZERO.

 

[Pogo]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

It's my belief that you want the world to accommodate you so that you don't have to inconvenience yourself.

Your vote counts as one person voting in your state, by any measurement. That's all you're entitled to. The fact that YOU chose to live in a state where there are a lot of other people voting, and the fact that you don't think it's fair that they all get the exact same rights you do, is irrelevant.

By your standards - where the world is obligated to give you, personally, more power for some odd reason - your vote also counts for less every time the population increases.

Contemplate the possibility that your view of how voting should work and what the actual goals and promises of voting rights might be in error.

Good post. I never see them complaining about any of the processes that they win by.
It's always the processes that they lose by that they complain about. In other words like anyone else they don't like to lose.

Once AGAIN ---- what you choose to "see" or "don't see" is your own failing. Burying your head in the sand does not somehow magically make a two-century-old question disappear. Once again for several examples, the National Popular Vote Compact dates to 2001; the Every Vote Counts Amendment to 2005; the Bayh-Celler Amendment to 1969; and we can take this all the way back to James Madison.

And leave us not leave out this stopped clock:

The fact that you chose to ignore each of these every time it comes up is irrelevant to anything except your own failure of observation. Then you want to blame those who were busy while you had your head in the sand.

 

[Pogo]

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

In a presidential election there are 50 elections not one. Each state elects the president of their choice. Ergo a large margin in one state does not spill over into the close margin of another state. You can see it as being unfair in the other direction also when one state like California has 54 electoral votes and another like Maine only has two; to count the popular vote across state lines would be to forget why States joined the union in the first place.


Jo

For somebody trying to shill for the Electrical College you display an alarming lack of knowledge, as you got BOTH of those states' EV numbers wrong. And it's ironic that you'd pick Maine, one of only two states out of the entire 57 that doesn't cascade all its EVs to the same candy no matter what the state margin is.

That practice ---- WTA, which creates those artificial bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states" (without which those bullshit concepts would not exist), and depresses voter turnout because what's the point, is NOWHERE prescribed in the Constitution. There's literally no reason any state has to do it, and Maine is the exception TO it that proves that. That's why James Madison, one of the original architects of the Electoral College itself, wanted to ban it via Constitutional Amendment. CLEARLY what we have going on is not what the Founders had in mind.

Again to use my own state as a ready example, we get 15 Electoral votes and during the charade we call "Election Day" no candidate got as much as 50% of our votes, and yet our state then went to Congress and told them we had voted for Rump unanimously. Which is an absolute crock. So I submit to you that my state (in this example and plug in any state you like) did NOT vote on its own citizens' behalf. It voted on behalf of the mob mentality of WTA.

Oh please .... so I didn't look them up before I quoted them they're close enough to make the point. Despite all the verbose condescension the point remains intact there are 50 elections not one. Jumping all over a numerical mistake doesn't argue against the point....

if you have a complaint about a particular state's process that's your business go to your state legislature and change it.

Actually that's exactly what the National Popular Vote Compact has been doing for 18 years, state by state. But then that's one of those myriad EC machinations you've been choosing to ignore. Then one day when everything changes you'll pop out of the ground like a prairie dog and go "WHA HAPPENED? Nobody told me about this!"

if you're unable to change it because it lacks support then I submit to you that is the method that will be used because that is the method the people want.

And I submit "the people" never did vote on it. What the people voted on was a particular candidate at the time, most of which votes got tossed into the crapper. You already know why.

You seem to keep forgetting that this is a union of states not one giant State lacking boundaries. I Keep noticing in the argumentation of those who are anti- EC that they really don't like the idea that states have boundaries.

No one has even brought up anything about "boundaries".

The post you started whining about put it nicely --- you can't steer a ship with 50 captains.

Additionally your main point is fatally flawed.
You keep bitching about the winner-take-all system and yet you have failed to designate any other kind of winner. Maybe if you spent less time on mockery and more time on reasoning you could compose a logical reply.

BULLSHIT. Once AGAIN you're choosing to ignore points you can't deal with. Once AGAIN to cite my example from way upthread, if our state had allocated 8 of its EVs for Rump and 7 for Clinton it would have been at least a far truer representation of who North Carolinans actually voted for that waddling into Congress and lying that a candidate who didn't even get 50% of our vote, got voted in unanimously.

That's a mathematical fact and there's nothing you can do about it. Not even hide in the sand and pretend it isn't there.

NOWHERE in the Constitution is WTA prescribed. It was adopted state-by-state in a grand mal seizure of "me too" mob mentality. The fact is every state can choose any method it wants to designate Electors; a vote isn't even required at all. So what we have on so-called "Election Day" is a sham, a bread and circus theatre full of sound and fury, signifying virtually nothing.

You remind me of another poster from a different forum who was fond of those phrases.

Shockingly ignorant
Amazingly unknowledgeable
Hugely inaccurate
Hilariously misguided
Etc...etc

Straight out of the letfy propaganda book 101.

More than anything else such overuse of mocking hyperbole merely highlights insecurity. Unable to argue intelligently on the main point you ankle bite instead.

Once AGAIN, who I 'remind you of', and what collective-fallacy labels you choose to ascribe to people because you can't address their points, is irrelevant to anything.

You didn't like the results of the last election so you attack the process yet what you're looking for is a winner who takes all as long as that winner is one that you have picked yourself.

so I will repeat to you what I have already mentioned to you several times ... there is no other kind of winner except the winner-who-takes-all. It doesn't matter how that person is selected there are always going to be a number of disenfranchised people who feel as though their vote was wasted.

Jo

Again, BULLSHIT. Argue with how math works all you like, you can't change how numbers work, and you can't make years/decades/centuries of controversy just "go away" because you don't like what they presented. That's pure self-delusion.

Again to cite my own state, going to Congress and representing that literally everybody in the state voted for Rump is a *LIE*. Just as it was when California trotted in and claimed everybody voted for Clinton. And so on through all the states.

Once AGAIN James Madison --- who pioneered the idea of the Electoral College itself --- wanted to BAN the practice of WTA, even though it would hurt his own state, the largest EV prize at the time. He could already see where it was headed.

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

It's my belief that you want the world to accommodate you so that you don't have to inconvenience yourself.

Your vote counts as one person voting in your state, by any measurement. That's all you're entitled to. The fact that YOU chose to live in a state where there are a lot of other people voting, and the fact that you don't think it's fair that they all get the exact same rights you do, is irrelevant..

Actually what's irrelevant is your ignoring the entire point and cowardly hiding behind these bullshit memes that can't be substantiated.

For instance --- again --- if a proxy-WTA system is so genius, how come ZERO of the 57 states have ever used any form of it to elect their governor? It's the same thing, in microcosm.

If you missed it, that number was ZERO.

What nation has 57 states?

Jo

 

[Wry Catcher]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Cool, let's allow each vote by a justice of the Supreme Court to be counted in this manner: The oldest serving justice vote is valued a nine, the second oldest serving justice is valued at 8, etc. and Trumps two get a value of 2 and 1.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Giving representation to prairie dogs and sage brush makes very little sense.

Then I Submit to you in that case that such States should excise themselves from the union because they can never be equally represented. The reason they joined the union in the first place was not because of their population density or lack thereof but because of the offer of equal standing.

Jo

It`s my belief that governments should represent the wishes of people as states are nothing more than invisible boundaries. A Montana resident`s vote counts more than my Pennsylvania vote. The largest state has 70 times the population of our smallest state yet the EC ratio of those states is 18-1. If you live in a larger state, your vote counts for less. Is that fair? States Rights should have all died at Appomattox IMO. A ship at sea can`t function with 50 captains.

It's my belief that you want the world to accommodate you so that you don't have to inconvenience yourself.

Your vote counts as one person voting in your state, by any measurement. That's all you're entitled to. The fact that YOU chose to live in a state where there are a lot of other people voting, and the fact that you don't think it's fair that they all get the exact same rights you do, is irrelevant..

Actually what's irrelevant is your ignoring the entire point and cowardly hiding behind these bullshit memes that can't be substantiated.

For instance --- again --- if a proxy-WTA system is so genius, how come ZERO of the 57 states have ever used any form of it to elect their governor? It's the same thing, in microcosm.

If you missed it, that number was ZERO.

What nation has 57 states?

Jo

It seems odd that the popular vote can provide a man or women a life-time appointment by a simple majority of one vote. A 2/3 + one would likely assure a nominee was worthy of such an honor. As it is, we have an admitted drunk and a liar to the Supreme Court.

 

[Redfish]

If the Popular Vote would have been the law Slick Willy would have lost...snowflakes LOVED the Electoral College!

. Bwuhahahaha.....

Ummmm actually no. He won the PV, both times he ran.

I dunno, maybe stuff like "Wikipedia" and "libraries" are beyond the reach of some.

he never got 51% of the PV but won the EC. you were fine with it then.