The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Fang]

The EC is the best way to ensure the majority doesn't rule.

And there you have it. omg

It makes total sense. Why should Los Angelos and New York decide for West Virginia, Montana, Iowa and even places in Wisconsin and Ohio? You don't understand the point of the EC, otherwise you would not respond with "omg". It's entirely setup so everyone has a say and not just a majority population. You just happen to be on the losing side so you don't like it.

The EC is the best way to ensure the majority doesn't rule.

And there you have it. omg

Go take a history lesson on why the EC was setup and get back to me. Oh, and when you do don't pick out one sentence of my post and leave the rest out.

A huge, important point that points out that this talk of the electoral college is stupid......

The Republican party now controls 33 governorships out of 50...that means at the state level.......where the people are most directly effected by the government....they voted republican.......so the electoral college whining by these guys is a joke...

How about instead of trying to change the rules Liberals fix their situation by talking about things middle America cares about like jobs, 2nd amendment rights, border security and the economy. People in middle America don't care if a man can enter the women's room and the bullshit garbage race card.

 

[2aguy]

Here....learn something about the Electoral College vs. the Popular vote...

 

[jc456]

You dembots miss the point that the EC protects states and geographical interests as well as people.

Think.

Often parroted, never demonstrated.

Meanwhile the arguments against have been thoroughly cultivated and articulated repeatedly.
I've been on it here for months. And the arguments are still the same.

The last election is clear demonstration of that point.

Your point is that you are hissy about it.

Tough.

My point is it's a stupid system that discourages voting, disenfranchises huge populations, creates division, perpetuates the Duopoly, and enslaves us to polls. And I've made this point literally for years.

And I have yet to see it deconstructed, and it ain't looking like today's gonna be the day.

This is the pitfall some fall into --- when they've been proven wrong and can't defend their position.... instead of accepting the results they just double down.

"When the known facts change --- I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Any system where you lose is stupid in your world. Just admit you can't accept losing

 

[jc456]

The EC is the best way to ensure the majority doesn't rule.

And there you have it. omg

It makes total sense. Why should Los Angelos and New York decide for West Virginia, Montana, Iowa and even places in Wisconsin and Ohio? You don't understand the point of the EC, otherwise you would not respond with "omg". It's entirely setup so everyone has a say and not just a majority population. You just happen to be on the losing side so you don't like it.

The EC is the best way to ensure the majority doesn't rule.

And there you have it. omg

Go take a history lesson on why the EC was setup and get back to me. Oh, and when you do don't pick out one sentence of my post and leave the rest out.

A huge, important point that points out that this talk of the electoral college is stupid......

The Republican party now controls 33 governorships out of 50...that means at the state level.......where the people are most directly effected by the government....they voted republican.......so the electoral college whining by these guys is a joke...

How about instead of trying to change the rules Liberals fix their situation by talking about things middle America cares about like jobs, 2nd amendment rights, border security and the economy. People in middle America don't care if a man can enter the women's room and the bullshit garbage race card.

Naw transgender is there concern, not jobs. How stupid is that. Don't talk down to me lib fks, and you'd be better off.

 

[Pogo]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I think the Democrats as currently comprised want it. I think they realize they couldn't get a constitutional amendment through the rigorous process though. I think many of their own constituents would not want it even, though.

In short, the American people don't want it because that would make money for votes a big boon (way more than it is now). The most corrupt party would win elections with systematic precision.

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit.

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

 

[Pogo]

.....

My point is it's a stupid system.....

Your point is ignorant and inaccurate (as usual).


How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well

***DO*** ***NOT**** quote my points out of context, pissant.

If you had the intellect to deconstruct everything you just excised --- to articulate some point instead of firing puerile ad homs and then hiding behind a link --- you would. But you don't . That's why you dance away from it with the edit ---- you can't do it.

Wimp.

 

[jc456]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I think the Democrats as currently comprised want it. I think they realize they couldn't get a constitutional amendment through the rigorous process though. I think many of their own constituents would not want it even, though.

In short, the American people don't want it because that would make money for votes a big boon (way more than it is now). The most corrupt party would win elections with systematic precision.

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit.

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

It's also the only time everyone votes for one spot. It's why the EC was developed by our four fathers to ensure equal vote. You should read the constitution on why. Why is it you libturds always cry and get all mopey. I laugh at your inability to accept defeat

 

[Pogo]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I think the Democrats as currently comprised want it. I think they realize they couldn't get a constitutional amendment through the rigorous process though. I think many of their own constituents would not want it even, though.

In short, the American people don't want it because that would make money for votes a big boon (way more than it is now). The most corrupt party would win elections with systematic precision.

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit.

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

It's also the only time everyone votes for one spot. It's why the EC was developed by our four fathers to ensure equal vote. You should read the constitution on why. Why is it you libturds always cry and get all mopey. I laugh at your inability to accept defeat

I don't have a "defeat" here Olive Oyl. This is a continuation of what I've always argued about the EC on this site and elsewhere. The only thing new is that Donald Rump agrees with me.

And as far as why the EC was developed, I've gone over that on roughly every other page of this entire thread. You might even avail yourself of those numerous posts.

Of course, that's risky. You might learn something. Are you afraid?

 

[Unkotare]

....

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention [sic]. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and [sic] abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit [sic].

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

The short attention span of whiners is irrelevant. The Electoral College isn't going anywhere.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I think the Democrats as currently comprised want it. I think they realize they couldn't get a constitutional amendment through the rigorous process though. I think many of their own constituents would not want it even, though.

In short, the American people don't want it because that would make money for votes a big boon (way more than it is now). The most corrupt party would win elections with systematic precision.

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit.

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

Obama told illegals to vote. A sitting ******* "president" told people to break our laws. Nobody with a brain gives a sh** about opening the door further for you to cheat.

 

[Unkotare]

.....

My point is it's a stupid system.....

Your point is ignorant and inaccurate (as usual).


How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well

***DO*** ***NOT**** quote my points out of context.....

I never do.

Did you read this part?

"The Framers of our Constitution invented a system that would establish a democracy while protecting minority rights. They created the Electoral College to protect the residents of the smaller states, and they rejected government by simple majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictatorships, not democracy."

-ibid

 

[jc456]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I think the Democrats as currently comprised want it. I think they realize they couldn't get a constitutional amendment through the rigorous process though. I think many of their own constituents would not want it even, though.

In short, the American people don't want it because that would make money for votes a big boon (way more than it is now). The most corrupt party would win elections with systematic precision.

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit.

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

It's also the only time everyone votes for one spot. It's why the EC was developed by our four fathers to ensure equal vote. You should read the constitution on why. Why is it you libturds always cry and get all mopey. I laugh at your inability to accept defeat

I don't have a "defeat" here Olive Oyl. This is a continuation of what I've always argued about the EC on this site and elsewhere. The only thing new is that Donald Rump agrees with me.

And as far as why the EC was developed, I've gone over that on roughly every other page of this entire thread. You might even avail yourself of those numerous posts.

Of course, that's risky. You might learn something. Are you afraid?

Just post your quote four years ago!

 

[jc456]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I think the Democrats as currently comprised want it. I think they realize they couldn't get a constitutional amendment through the rigorous process though. I think many of their own constituents would not want it even, though.

In short, the American people don't want it because that would make money for votes a big boon (way more than it is now). The most corrupt party would win elections with systematic precision.

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit.

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

Obama told illegals to vote. A sitting ******* "president" told people to break our laws. Nobody with a brain gives a sh** about opening the door further for you to cheat.

No integrity is who libturds are

 

[Pogo]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I think the Democrats as currently comprised want it. I think they realize they couldn't get a constitutional amendment through the rigorous process though. I think many of their own constituents would not want it even, though.

In short, the American people don't want it because that would make money for votes a big boon (way more than it is now). The most corrupt party would win elections with systematic precision.

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit.

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

Obama told illegals to vote. A sitting ******* "president" told people to break our laws. Nobody with a brain gives a sh** about opening the door further for you to cheat.

I've said nothing about "cheating", your post responds to mine in no way whatsoever and your irrelevant comment about O'bama has no basis.

Strike three. Next batter.

 

[jc456]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I think the Democrats as currently comprised want it. I think they realize they couldn't get a constitutional amendment through the rigorous process though. I think many of their own constituents would not want it even, though.

In short, the American people don't want it because that would make money for votes a big boon (way more than it is now). The most corrupt party would win elections with systematic precision.

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit.

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

Obama told illegals to vote. A sitting ******* "president" told people to break our laws. Nobody with a brain gives a sh** about opening the door further for you to cheat.

I've said nothing about "cheating", your post responds to mine in no way whatsoever and your irrelevant comment about O'bama has no basis.

Strike three. Next batter.

Are you saying he didn't say that? You want the link?

 

[kaz]

without the EC, 4 of our largest metropolitan areas could select our presidents-----------the tiny blue spots on the voting map that has been posted many times.

The founders understood that that would be a disaster.

Bullshit.
You can't make that argument work. Cannot be done. Go ahead and give it a shot.

A PV in no way takes any votes away from outside of metro areas.
An EC on the other hand nullifies literally millions on the spot.

And again, this system wasn't set up by "the Founders" but by the Twelfth Amendment.... which also counted slaves for three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting EVs (but not for the purpose of voting).

That of course was revised with the Fourteenth when slavery was abolished ---- which also counted women for the purpose of counting EVs but not for the purpose of voting.

That part wasn't fixed until the Nineteenth.

Notice that this Yugo is always in the shop?

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The point of parallel count is obviously way off but let's address the prior point.

Y'all Echobubblers keep parroting this line about votes "counting" differently depending on "big" and "little" states, but you can't make that case, because "one" still equals "one" and always will. Nothing about using a PV would change that elemental mathematical fact . And as I've pointed out relentlessly, your state (any state) elects its chief executive that way already with no issues of "big" parishes versus "little" ones. Every voter in Orleans gets counted exactly the same as every voter in Winn. There ain't no disparity. It's impossible to make that case.

Think of it this way. If a year ago West Virginia had decided to rejoin Virginia, Rump would have had ALL of those EVs because WV would have pushed VA well over the edge. In your logic the WV vote would thus count for *more*. Why should it?

Apparently you want certain votes, in this case urban, to be diluted because you don't like that the people who vote against the way you want are more numerous. You yourself came right out and said so right here:

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats.

It's the same effect as gerrymandering to manipulate districts into the shape the gerrymanderer wants, rather than what its people want.

So a game ends and one team won 21 to 14. You're arguing that the team with 14 won, they got more first downs. Bull, no one's goal was winning the count of first downs, just they wanted first downs to win the point count. Trump didn't go to or advertise in any big cities or solid blue Democrat States. Hillary winning the popular vote is completely irrelevant, no one campaigned for that end

 

[Pogo]

.....

My point is it's a stupid system.....

Your point is ignorant and inaccurate (as usual).


How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well

***DO*** ***NOT**** quote my points out of context.....

I never do.

Did you read this part?

"The Framers of our Constitution invented a system that would establish a democracy while protecting minority rights. They created the Electoral College to protect the residents of the smaller states, and they rejected government by simple majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictatorships, not democracy."

-ibid

I didn't read any of it. Because you're too much of a wimp to make your own points. When you do I'll read them.

To the above though, as already explained waaaaaaaaay back at the beginning of this thread, those "smaller states" that were beign "protected" were the slave states. And they were "protected" by making them artificially bigger by counting their slaves --- who had no representation and could not vote -- as three-fifths of a person each, which increased their Electoral Vote and greased the wheels that gave us Southern slaveholders for six of our first seven Presidents --- which in turn left the slavery question to fester until it came to a bloody head.

THEN, Skippy, after slavery was abolished and they could no longer count non-voting population to inflate their numbers the Fourteenth ensured that ALL the states, not just the South, had a way to count non-voting population at the rate of five-fifths per person, by which we mean women.

And NOW, Nimrod, as articulated over and over and over in this thread which is in no way restricted from reading, it creates still more artificial barriers of "red" states and "blue" states in a division that not only is reflected every day on these pages but continues to grow deeper.

This thing is all about division.

Had enough?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pogo keeps parroting his nonsense, which only reveals he is nonsensical.

This last election demonstrates the silliness of the "all democracy" gang.

If you want third party candidates, start in congressional races and get a voice there. Why not try that? Instead of pissing on what exists.

JC is confused. As usual. I am fine with the EC and want it to remain.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You dembots miss the point that the EC protects states and geographical interests as well as people.

Think.

Often parroted, never demonstrated.

Meanwhile the arguments against have been thoroughly cultivated and articulated repeatedly.
I've been on it here for months. And the arguments are still the same.

The last election is clear demonstration of that point.

Your point is that you are hissy about it.

Tough.

My point is it's a stupid system that discourages voting, disenfranchises huge populations, creates division, perpetuates the Duopoly, and enslaves us to polls. And I've made this point literally for years.

And I have yet to see it deconstructed, and it ain't looking like today's gonna be the day.

This is the pitfall some fall into --- when they've been proven wrong and can't defend their position.... instead of accepting the results they just double down.

"When the known facts change --- I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Any system where you lose is stupid in your world. Just admit you can't accept losing

You and Pogo are janus, the two faced symbol of silliness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

.....

My point is it's a stupid system.....

Your point is ignorant and inaccurate (as usual).


How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well

***DO*** ***NOT**** quote my points out of context.....

I never do.

Did you read this part?

"The Framers of our Constitution invented a system that would establish a democracy while protecting minority rights. They created the Electoral College to protect the residents of the smaller states, and they rejected government by simple majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictatorships, not democracy."

-ibid

I didn't read any of it. Because you're too much of a wimp to make your own points. When you do I'll read them.

To the above though, as already explained waaaaaaaaay back at the beginning of this thread, those "smaller states" that were beign "protected" were the slave states. And they were "protected" by making them artificially bigger by counting their slaves --- who had no representation and could not vote -- as three-fifths of a person each, which increased their Electoral Vote and greased the wheels that gave us Southern slaveholders for six of our first seven Presidents --- which in turn left the slavery question to fester until it came to a bloody head.

THEN, Skippy, after slavery was abolished and they could no longer count non-voting population to inflate their numbers the Fourteenth ensured that ALL the states, not just the South, had a way to count non-voting population at the rate of five-fifths per person, by which we mean women.

And NOW, Nimrod, as articulated over and over and over in this thread which is in no way restricted from reading, it creates still more artificial barriers of "red" states and "blue" states in a division that not only is reflected every day on these pages but continues to grow deeper.

This thing is all about division.

Had enough?

It has been lost since the OP. You are in the wrong. That will never change of this issue.