Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[longknife]

We are seeing the results of progressive attempts to overturn the original intent of the constitution in the Senate races. Senators were never meant to be elected by popular vote. The state legislatures selected and elected candidates to represent their interests in the US Senate. If that were still the case today, we would not be seeing the outright attempts to steal victory from the hands of the winner.

 

[justoffal]

We are seeing the results of progressive attempts to overturn the original intent of the constitution in the Senate races. Senators were never meant to be elected by popular vote. The state legislatures selected and elected candidates to represent their interests in the US Senate. If that were still the case today, we would not be seeing the outright attempts to steal victory from the hands of the winner.

The beginnings of civil war.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

We are seeing the results of progressive attempts to overturn the original intent of the constitution in the Senate races. Senators were never meant to be elected by popular vote. The state legislatures selected and elected candidates to represent their interests in the US Senate. If that were still the case today, we would not be seeing the outright attempts to steal victory from the hands of the winner.

Right. We "would not be seeing" it because it would be happening in a smoke-filled back room.

As frequently as we see it around here it's always a revelation when you Big State authoritarian yahoos who want to wrest the vote away from the people self-identify.

 

[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

the only thing you are really saying is you're mad you're not getting your way, so the system must be flawed.

the system is fine but maybe you need to think, and all those who want MOB RULES to be our way of life, this country isn't about any 1 mindset or any 1 place. it's about all of us. in that type of a world you don't always get your way. i wish the left and nutbags who feel 250+ years of proven history is suddenly wrong today cause they're not getting their way at every turn.

"Proven history"? I got your "proven history" right here pal. Disprove that. Sorry it doesn't stretch all the way back to 1768 and beyond, whatever that was supposed to mean.

You're a colonialist or what?

 

[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

the only thing you are really saying is you're mad you're not getting your way, so the system must be flawed.

the system is fine but maybe you need to think, and all those who want MOB RULES to be our way of life, this country isn't about any 1 mindset or any 1 place. it's about all of us. in that type of a world you don't always get your way. i wish the left and nutbags who feel 250+ years of proven history is suddenly wrong today cause they're not getting their way at every turn.

Um....I did get my way.... But I'm still asking.
That's called honest self examination

Jo

it's also a popular topic for millennials and younger votes who are seeing an archaic system preventing them from getting their way. apologies if i misunderstood what you are saying.

There it is, isn't it. "I didn't realize you were one of my tribe, therefore I withdraw my criticism of your valid argument, yet I won't admit I was full of shit in so criticizing it". Busted.

 

[iceberg]

We are seeing the results of progressive attempts to overturn the original intent of the constitution in the Senate races. Senators were never meant to be elected by popular vote. The state legislatures selected and elected candidates to represent their interests in the US Senate. If that were still the case today, we would not be seeing the outright attempts to steal victory from the hands of the winner.

Right. We "would not be seeing" it because it would be happening in a smoke-filled back room.

As frequently as we see it around here it's always a revelation when you Big State authoritarian yahoos who want to wrest the vote away from the people self-identify.

big state? who's the one saying MOB RULES *of which* is usually the bigger crowd?

those advocating "mob rules" are wanting to say **** YOU to the smaller voices and force what you believe on them. ironic, isn't it?

 

[JoeB131]

the system is fine but maybe you need to think, and all those who want MOB RULES to be our way of life, this country isn't about any 1 mindset or any 1 place. it's about all of us. in that type of a world you don't always get your way. i wish the left and nutbags who feel 250+ years of proven history is suddenly wrong today cause they're not getting their way at every turn.

250 years of history kind of proves nothing, dummy. You can get 20 historians in a room and get 20 different opinions of what history proves.

Here's the thing. When the will of the people has been ignored by the Electoral Anachronism, it's always, always, always been a disaster. Trump is a disaster. Bush was a disaster. Rutherford B. Hayes was a disaster.

The people said no. Every day, Trump proves they got it right, and the Electoral College got it wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

Yup. The FF were very wise men.

Wise men don't say stuff like 'All men are created equal" and then go home and rape their slaves.

Those people are called 'hypocrites'.

 

[JoeB131]

We are seeing the results of progressive attempts to overturn the original intent of the constitution in the Senate races. Senators were never meant to be elected by popular vote. The state legislatures selected and elected candidates to represent their interests in the US Senate. If that were still the case today, we would not be seeing the outright attempts to steal victory from the hands of the winner.

Um, guy, the original intent was overturned 100 years ago, when people realized how corrupt the system of legislatures selecting Senators was and demanded they be elected directly.

 

[Pilot1]

Why would I want Communists in New York City metro, and L.A. metro dictating to me? The reason we have the EC is so that STATE'S could differentiate themselves, and people could "vote with their feet", and move to a place in which had a political, and social climate in which they agreed.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would I want Communists in New York City metro, and L.A. metro dictating to me?

Because they are the majority.

Why would I want the inbred, bible thumping assholes ******* their cousins in the Red States dictating to me?

 

[longknife]

the system is fine but maybe you need to think, and all those who want MOB RULES to be our way of life, this country isn't about any 1 mindset or any 1 place. it's about all of us. in that type of a world you don't always get your way. i wish the left and nutbags who feel 250+ years of proven history is suddenly wrong today cause they're not getting their way at every turn.

250 years of history kind of proves nothing, dummy. You can get 20 historians in a room and get 20 different opinions of what history proves.

Here's the thing. When the will of the people has been ignored by the Electoral Anachronism, it's always, always, always been a disaster. Trump is a disaster. Bush was a disaster. Rutherford B. Hayes was a disaster.

The people said no. Every day, Trump proves they got it right, and the Electoral College got it wrong.

People who believe like you are exactly which the Dims took the House but failed to gain a majority in the Senate.

 

[longknife]

We are seeing the results of progressive attempts to overturn the original intent of the constitution in the Senate races. Senators were never meant to be elected by popular vote. The state legislatures selected and elected candidates to represent their interests in the US Senate. If that were still the case today, we would not be seeing the outright attempts to steal victory from the hands of the winner.

Um, guy, the original intent was overturned 100 years ago, when people realized how corrupt the system of legislatures selecting Senators was and demanded they be elected directly.

The biggest mistake ever in the history of this country,. The United States is just that - a unity of separate states with separate constitutions and beliefs. Taking the appointment away from the states did nothing but negate the 10th Amendment and further federalize our nation.

Representatives represent the individual people.
Senators should represent the individual states.
The President represents both.

 

[longknife]

Why would I want Communists in New York City metro, and L.A. metro dictating to me? The reason we have the EC is so that STATE'S could differentiate themselves, and people could "vote with their feet", and move to a place in which had a political, and social climate in which they agreed.

Amen!

 

[longknife]

Why would I want Communists in New York City metro, and L.A. metro dictating to me?

Because they are the majority.

Why would I want the inbred, bible thumping assholes ******* their cousins in the Red States dictating to me?

If you believe that bovine excrement, you are one sick individual.

 

[Cellblock2429]

the system is fine but maybe you need to think, and all those who want MOB RULES to be our way of life, this country isn't about any 1 mindset or any 1 place. it's about all of us. in that type of a world you don't always get your way. i wish the left and nutbags who feel 250+ years of proven history is suddenly wrong today cause they're not getting their way at every turn.

250 years of history kind of proves nothing, dummy. You can get 20 historians in a room and get 20 different opinions of what history proves.

Here's the thing. When the will of the people has been ignored by the Electoral Anachronism, it's always, always, always been a disaster. Trump is a disaster. Bush was a disaster. Rutherford B. Hayes was a disaster.

The people said no. Every day, Trump proves they got it right, and the Electoral College got it wrong.

/——-/ But Obozo was the worst ever. Bush saved us from Al Bore and Trump saved us from Hildabeast and you hate Hayes because he was a lawyer and staunch abolitionist who defended runaway slaves in court proceedings.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

You're not exactly being truthful here.

Why would the popular vote not work "in a large nation"?

You're basically telling me that the larger a nation is, the less democracy there should be because.... oh, wait, you didn't say why.

Brazil uses a popular vote system with two rounds. They have a population of 210 million people. The system "works".

I don't understand what "works" means here.

The EC system "works" as in it puts a person into the presidency the same as a popular vote system does, the same as China's system does.

Are you saying it won't "work" as in the right wing will not get an overly easy ride therefore you don't like it, therefore it doesn't "work"? How would it not work?

What is it about democracy that you don't like?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

How is it "wise"? Giving people different power in votes simply based on where they live? Giving only 12 states the power to choose the presidency too. That's not "wise".

 

[sparky]

methinks whatever method is presented is moot, given we've no choices to vote for anymore

~S~

 

[Pilot1]

We are a Constitutional Representative Republic, a collection of STATES, not a Democracy. Democracy is MOB RULE.