The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Weatherman2020]

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

You're probably right. The popular vote would not be ratified. However, that may not always be the case. The mobility of people, ideas, and issues should in time narrow the divide between the people. If it doesn't there might not be a United States of America but rather the Divided States of America.

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

Let's put abortion, homosexual marriage, welfare qualifications, and immigration up to the popular vote.

 

[Pogo]

You're probably right. The popular vote would not be ratified. However, that may not always be the case. The mobility of people, ideas, and issues should in time narrow the divide between the people. If it doesn't there might not be a United States of America but rather the Divided States of America.

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

Let's put abortion, homosexual marriage, welfare qualifications, and immigration up to the popular vote.

OK. Whatever.
Dafuk's it got to do with this topic?

Of course there are already "national votes" that are nonbinding that analyze issues --- we call them "polls".

Like this one, on whether the Electoral College should be retired.
Guess what the results look like.

I love this part of its background text:

>> Yet the Electoral College wasn't adopted out of fear of King George III, or an autocrat in his mold dominating the new United States government. It was included by the founders to guard against a type of "mob rule" — to prevent uneducated white men having too much say in the election of a president. <<
​

​

Whelp -- that's exactly the argument used that the EC may, if it wants, contradict what the media tells us the Electoral Vote is. And they can do it if they want. It would be unprecedented but hey, many aspects of this wacko election have been unprecedented. More importantly, it would be Constitutional.

 

[Weatherman2020]

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

Let's put abortion, homosexual marriage, welfare qualifications, and immigration up to the popular vote.

OK. Whatever.
Dafuk's it got to do with this topic?

Pure Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

So let's go for it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The democrats are dedicated to disenfranchising voters in 48 states.

Without the EC, New York and California alone would decide EVERY presidential election. The rest of the nation may as well stay home, their votes no longer matter.

This is what the democrats want, to disenfranchise most of the nation.

 

[hadit]

Said Donald Trump in 2012.

I betcha he wishes he could take that one back.

Trump would have won without that, if that's why you are now making the argument.

You see, the rules affect how the game is played.

Seriously, you don't have to like a rule to exploit it and benefit from its use.

 

[Uncensored2008]

OK. Whatever.
Dafuk's it got to do with this topic?

Everything, retard.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

They don't need to. Know why?
Because PEOPLE all have the same population size: "one".

Needs are regional, retard. Voters in Los Angeles care about water and about bringing the rest of their family in from Mexico. This has nothing to do with people in Iowa or Texas.

Look, you're a Soros hack, but the founding fathers were so much smarter than you, and grasp that each state had it's own agenda, hence needed a voice in the executive branch.

If we did as your master commands, then only California and New York would matter, no one else in the nation would have any voice. Radical left rulers with an urban agenda would by default win in every case, since the great urban centers would be all that would matter in elections.

Yes, this is what you of the left seek, it furthers your goal of a 1% ruling elite in the central authority using and iron fist on the impoverished masses of the 99%.

Leftism is simply feudalism repackaged for consumption by the stupid.

 

[Pogo]

the founding fathers were so much smarter than you, and grasp that each state had it's own agenda, hence needed a voice in the executive branch.

"It is own agenda" huh? Perhaps the founding fathers had better writing skills than you Pothead.

No -- they didn't want the poorly educated calling the shots any more than they wanted African slaves or women calling the shots so they set it up so that not only would those elements be suppressed, but that the slave states got a bigger voice than their own populations.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong.

Although I will grant this --- there is a case to be made that uneducated white men should be overrulable. In that aspect it just might be they got it right. So I grant you a point there.

If we did as your master commands, then only California and New York would matter, no one else in the nation would have any voice.

I don't have a "ruler", Pothead. And nobody, not me or anyone else, has suggested nullifying anybody's votes. To the contrary I've relentlessly pointed out that the EC ALREADY nullifies votes, and I've been doing it all year.

Like yours, Pothead. You had no vote. I had one but you didn't. There was no point in your going out to vote; you could have gone and voted Clinton, or Rump, or Alfred E Newman, or stayed home and voted for nobody --- it wouldn't make a damn lick of difference. Your state already dictated what your vote was, unanimous Hillary, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Why DID you vote for Hillary, Pothead? The world wants an answer.

Radical left rulers with an urban agenda would by default win in every case, since the great urban centers would be all that would matter in elections.

Allllllllllllll you have to do is demonstrate how that works. That invitation has been open for five hundred posts, nobody's done it yet. Yeah unfortunately parroting a slogan you can't explain doesn't make a point. It makes a parrot. Who got a "ruler" now, beeyatch?

Leftism is simply feudalism repackaged for consumption by the stupid.

Dunno. I'm a Liberal, not a "leftist", so that's an irrelevancy.

Needs are regional, retard.

And that's why you vote for a Governor -- for regional things. Or a Congressman -- for regional things. Or a county commissioner --- for regional things. *ALL* of which you elect by, all together now, A popular vote. A POTUS on the other hand runs a country -- not a region.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
"It is own agenda" huh? Perhaps the founding fathers had better writing skills than you Pothead.

No -- they didn't want the poorly educated calling the shots any more than they wanted African slaves or women calling the shots so they set it up so that not only would those elements be suppressed, but that the slave states got a bigger voice than their own populations.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong.

Although I will grant this --- there is a case to be made that uneducated white men should be overrulable. In that aspect it just might be they got it right. So I grant you a point there.

Wow, word for word from the Soros hate sites!

Have you ever had a thought in your life?

Of course retard, what Soros claims is not even close to true. Nowhere is your racist chant of "white men" that you ***** hate so bitterly mentioned.

Rather Hamilton wrote SPECIFICALLY of cabals of corrupt power structures seeking to dominate the top executive through the creation of what he called "factions" in densely populated areas, where they would word against the interests of the republic at large.

From Federalist 68;

{Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.}

I don't have a "ruler", Pothead. And nobody, not me or anyone else, has suggested nullifying anybody's votes. To the contrary I've relentlessly pointed out that the EC ALREADY nullifies votes, and I've been doing it all year.

You are a puppet dancing on the string of George Soros. Your lies are verbatim recitations of the idiocy published on ThinkProgress and the other hate sites.

Like yours, Pothead. You had no vote. I had one but you didn't. There was no point in your going out to vote; you could have gone and voted Clinton, or Rump, or Alfred E Newman, or stayed home and voted for nobody --- it wouldn't make a damn lick of difference. Your state already dictated what your vote was, unanimous Hillary, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Why DID you vote for Hillary, Pothead? The world wants an answer.

.

Of course I had a vote, retard.

Yes, I live in a state where the Communist party rules without restraint - a situation you (through your master) seek to extend to the entire nation. Yet I still have the option and duty to vote. It's true that the EV's of the state will go to the democrat, but I still have an effect on state and local issue.

Allllllllllllll you have to do is demonstrate how that works. That invitation has been open for five hundred posts, nobody's done it yet. Yeah unfortunately parroting a slogan you can't explain doesn't make a point. It makes a parrot. Who got a "ruler" now, beeyatch?

LOL

The one who parrots slogans is you, retard. You let the hate sites define your "thoughts."

You seek to disenfranchise voters in 48 states, because your master tells you that you should want that.. You lack the wits or integrity to analyze the situation for yourself.

Dunno. I'm a Liberal, not a "leftist", so that's an irrelevancy.

So, you support Laissez Faire Capitalism then?

Or are you lying, and actually a leftist?

 

[Wyatt earp]

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

You're probably right. The popular vote would not be ratified. However, that may not always be the case. The mobility of people, ideas, and issues should in time narrow the divide between the people. If it doesn't there might not be a United States of America but rather the Divided States of America.

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

You have to be the most retarded stupid **** on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt *******, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

 

[Pogo]

You're probably right. The popular vote would not be ratified. However, that may not always be the case. The mobility of people, ideas, and issues should in time narrow the divide between the people. If it doesn't there might not be a United States of America but rather the Divided States of America.

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

You have to be the most retarded stupid **** on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt *******, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

 

[Pogo]

[
"It is own agenda" huh? Perhaps the founding fathers had better writing skills than you Pothead.

No -- they didn't want the poorly educated calling the shots any more than they wanted African slaves or women calling the shots so they set it up so that not only would those elements be suppressed, but that the slave states got a bigger voice than their own populations.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong.

Although I will grant this --- there is a case to be made that uneducated white men should be overrulable. In that aspect it just might be they got it right. So I grant you a point there.

Wow, word for word from the Soros hate sites!

Have you ever had a thought in your life?

Of course retard, what Soros claims is not even close to true. Nowhere is your racist chant of "white men" that you ***** hate so bitterly mentioned.

Rather Hamilton wrote SPECIFICALLY of cabals of corrupt power structures seeking to dominate the top executive through the creation of what he called "factions" in densely populated areas, where they would word against the interests of the republic at large.

From Federalist 68;

{Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.}

I don't have a "ruler", Pothead. And nobody, not me or anyone else, has suggested nullifying anybody's votes. To the contrary I've relentlessly pointed out that the EC ALREADY nullifies votes, and I've been doing it all year.

You are a puppet dancing on the string of George Soros. Your lies are verbatim recitations of the idiocy published on ThinkProgress and the other hate sites.

Like yours, Pothead. You had no vote. I had one but you didn't. There was no point in your going out to vote; you could have gone and voted Clinton, or Rump, or Alfred E Newman, or stayed home and voted for nobody --- it wouldn't make a damn lick of difference. Your state already dictated what your vote was, unanimous Hillary, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Why DID you vote for Hillary, Pothead? The world wants an answer.

.

Of course I had a vote, retard.

Yes, I live in a state where the Communist party rules without restraint - a situation you (through your master) seek to extend to the entire nation. Yet I still have the option and duty to vote. It's true that the EV's of the state will go to the democrat, but I still have an effect on state and local issue.

Allllllllllllll you have to do is demonstrate how that works. That invitation has been open for five hundred posts, nobody's done it yet. Yeah unfortunately parroting a slogan you can't explain doesn't make a point. It makes a parrot. Who got a "ruler" now, beeyatch?

LOL

The one who parrots slogans is you, retard. You let the hate sites define your "thoughts."

You seek to disenfranchise voters in 48 states, because your master tells you that you should want that.. You lack the wits or integrity to analyze the situation for yourself.

Dunno. I'm a Liberal, not a "leftist", so that's an irrelevancy.

So, you support Laissez Faire Capitalism then?

Or are you lying, and actually a leftist?

I have no inking in the world what Soros is doing, Pothead. I don't farm out my thought -- that's apaprently your thing. I'm just continuing the same points on the topic I've been making throughout this year. Which apparently you can't handle so you're desperately trying to make some kind of Association Fallacy with unknown persons --- which is also ghey.

And no, you didn't have a vote. Your vote meant absolutely jack friggin squat. Your states electors are already set, and already were, and there wasn't a damn thing in the voting booth you could do about it. Your state dictated what your vote was, just as the original EC dictated what slaves' votes were, just as after the inevitable Civil War it dictated what women's votes were. Again, not a damn thing they could do about it either.

And yes I support laissez-faire capitalism. Liberalism after all made that possible. And no I'm not out to "disenfranchise" anybody --- I'm out to do the opposite. Even if it means restoring the votes to morons like you.

And by the way---- yeah you're welcome, ingrate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

I have no inking in the world what Soros is doing, Pothead. I don't farm out my thought -- that's apaprently your thing. I'm just continuing the same points on the topic I've been making throughout this year. Which apparently you can't handle so you're desperately trying to make some kind of Association Fallacy with unknown persons --- which is also ghey.

And no, you didn't have a vote. Your vote meant absolutely jack friggin squat. Your states electors are already set, and already were, and there wasn't a damn thing in the voting booth you could do about it. Your state dictated what your vote was, just as the original EC dictated what slaves' votes were, just as after the inevitable Civil War it dictated what women's votes were. Again, not a damn thing they could do about it either.

And yes I support laissez-faire capitalism. Liberalism after all made that possible. And no I'm not out to "disenfranchise" anybody --- I'm out to do the opposite. Even if it means restoring the votes to morons like you.

And by the way---- yeah you're welcome, ingrate.

You've not had a thought of your own in year, decades most likely. You read the hate sites and repeat their idiocy here.

If we went to a popular vote, my vote for Johnson would have no more impact than it did under the EC. Your idiocy is without a hint of logic.

What WOULD happen is that the mass urban centers of Los Angeles and New York would drown out every other part of the nation, which is what you seek.

Two states would disenfranchise the other 48 - this is what you promote.

Liberalism indeed made free markets possible, which is one of the reasons I point out that democrats and greens are not liberals, they are leftists.

 

[Redfish]

No, should your vote count more because you live in a big city? The EC was designed to give all areas of the country proportional value in selecting our presidents. Its not perfect by a long shot, we do not live in a pure democracy. Electing presidents using PV would virtually give no say to anyone except the big city dwellers.

Is that how it works in every other country in the world where voters who elect a head of state do it with a direct popular vote? Hm?

Oh wait, not every other country does that; there's one that does it indirectly like we do. Pakistan.
They know what they're doin' huh? Damn Karachi-Democrats, they want to run everything.

But this is nothing but an academic discussion. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC would never get 38 states to ratify it.

That's (a) a self-fulfilling prophecy fallacy; declare something "will never work", therefore throw up one's hands and make no attempt. It's ghey.

And (b) it isn't necessary to eliminate the EC anyway -- how the EC votes is up to the several states. There's no part of the Constitution anywhere that dictates they have to vote "winner take all". None. Zero. Two states already don't; they happen to subdivide by Congresscritter district but they could do it any way they like including proportional to the state's PV.

So changing how the shitstem works doesn't require 38 states. It just requires one at a time.

'
bullshit, it would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states. allocating EC votes is not the same as doing away with it. But since you like the state by state idea, how about allocating California's EC votes based on how all of the voters in that state vote?
Why should Trump voters in California have no voice?

 

[Redfish]

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

You're probably right. The popular vote would not be ratified. However, that may not always be the case. The mobility of people, ideas, and issues should in time narrow the divide between the people. If it doesn't there might not be a United States of America but rather the Divided States of America.

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

^^^^ignorance on display, you are really dumping on yourself on this one, hopstick.

 

[Pogo]

You're probably right. The popular vote would not be ratified. However, that may not always be the case. The mobility of people, ideas, and issues should in time narrow the divide between the people. If it doesn't there might not be a United States of America but rather the Divided States of America.

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

^^^^ignorance on display, you are really dumping on yourself on this one, hopstick.

Again, five hundred posts on ---- you have no answer.
Guess what that means.

 

[Pogo]

No, should your vote count more because you live in a big city? The EC was designed to give all areas of the country proportional value in selecting our presidents. Its not perfect by a long shot, we do not live in a pure democracy. Electing presidents using PV would virtually give no say to anyone except the big city dwellers.

Is that how it works in every other country in the world where voters who elect a head of state do it with a direct popular vote? Hm?

Oh wait, not every other country does that; there's one that does it indirectly like we do. Pakistan.
They know what they're doin' huh? Damn Karachi-Democrats, they want to run everything.

But this is nothing but an academic discussion. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC would never get 38 states to ratify it.

That's (a) a self-fulfilling prophecy fallacy; declare something "will never work", therefore throw up one's hands and make no attempt. It's ghey.

And (b) it isn't necessary to eliminate the EC anyway -- how the EC votes is up to the several states. There's no part of the Constitution anywhere that dictates they have to vote "winner take all". None. Zero. Two states already don't; they happen to subdivide by Congresscritter district but they could do it any way they like including proportional to the state's PV.

So changing how the shitstem works doesn't require 38 states. It just requires one at a time.

'
bullshit, it would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states. allocating EC votes is not the same as doing away with it. But since you like the state by state idea, how about allocating California's EC votes based on how all of the voters in that state vote?
Why should Trump voters in California have no voice?

NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's what I've been saying all year about this shit. Including all over this thread.



I just wanna reach into the screen and SHAKE some of you cretins....

 

[Uncensored2008]

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

^^^^ignorance on display, you are really dumping on yourself on this one, hopstick.

Again, five hundred posts on ---- you have no answer.
Guess what that means.

Your ass was handed to you long ago, retard.

That you are too dumb, and too dishonest to acknowledge the obvious facts notwithstanding.

 

[Wyatt earp]

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

You have to be the most retarded stupid **** on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt *******, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

You have to be the most retarded stupid **** on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt *******, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

And you wonder how you lost in 2010.2014 and 2016?

Yeah we know *****, you want to govern and not pay consequences

You get the poor vote you get the elite vote and **** the middle class, shut them up and let them pay taxes...

 

[Pogo]

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

You have to be the most retarded stupid **** on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt *******, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

You have to be the most retarded stupid **** on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt *******, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

And you wonder how you lost in 2010.2014 and 2016?

Yeah we know *****, you want to govern and not pay consequences

You get the poor vote you get the elite vote and **** the middle class, shut them up and let them pay taxes...

Uhhmmmm.... I didn't "lose" in any of those years, Fingerboy. I didn't run for anything.

But it's informative that you still have nothing on the topic.

Tissue?