The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Pogo]

See what I mean Peach? This is even more eloquent.

Well what can you say other than he is a boblyne.

I don't even know what that is. Does it have something to do with sewing machines?

I like the looks of it though. Something about the YN combination gives a certain class, in a sorta Welsh way.

Its a 17th century word for fool.

Reeeallly. .... OK now I love the word.

Do you speake olde Englisshe? I've got a word that old in my profile, or one fashioned from it: Agresticia, derived from the word agrestic, recently "retired" by the OED --- which ironically means "rustic".

I'm heavily into the 17th, from it's history, to the clothing and the language and including the dulcimer.
Now, I think I have proved I know my english very well including old English. Eh?

You have indeed and I am duly impressed. Huzzah!

Anybody messes with you Peachy, you tell 'em you got the Pogo stamp of approval
---- and they'll answer to me .


Do you do Renaissance Faires?

 

[peach174]

Well what can you say other than he is a boblyne.

I don't even know what that is. Does it have something to do with sewing machines?

I like the looks of it though. Something about the YN combination gives a certain class, in a sorta Welsh way.

Its a 17th century word for fool.

Reeeallly. .... OK now I love the word.

Do you speake olde Englisshe? I've got a word that old in my profile, or one fashioned from it: Agresticia, derived from the word agrestic, recently "retired" by the OED --- which ironically means "rustic".

I'm heavily into the 17th, from it's history, to the clothing and the language and including the dulcimer.
Now, I think I have proved I know my english very well including old English. Eh?

You have indeed and I am duly impressed. Huzzah!

Anybody messes with you Peachy, you tell 'em you got the Pogo stamp of approval
---- and they'll answer to me .


Do you do Renaissance Faires?

No!
I had alot of History Grad students as friends.
My ex was a Psychology grad student.
He hated that I had friends in history and archeology. made it harder for him to control me.
You don't hang out with that crowd without being well read in History or archaeology. At one time I could read hieroglyphics, but I have forgotten most of now.
The 17th century has always fascinated me even as a kid when I first learned about it.

 

[peach174]

Looks like we hijacked the thread Pogo. oops !

 

[Redfish]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

its only a concern for the side that loses.

 

[peach174]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

its only a concern for the side that loses.

And we're back to our regular scheduled programming folks.

 

[peach174]

Whenever the people chooses to change our Constitution or get rid of certain parts of it , gives power to the government and takes power away from the people.

 

[Pogo]

Whenever the people chooses to change our Constitution or get rid of certain parts of it , gives power to the government and takes power away from the people.

Well that's clearly not true.

One Constitutional change gave power to ex-slaves. Another gave power to women. A third repealed Prohibition. None of those gave power to the gummint, and all of them gave power to the People.

 

[Pogo]

Looks like we hijacked the thread Pogo. oops !

It was a worthy tangent. I learnt me a new word!

 

[peach174]

Whenever the people chooses to change our Constitution or get rid of certain parts of it , gives power to the government and takes power away from the people.

Well that's clearly not true.

One Constitutional change gave power to ex-slaves. Another gave power to women. A third repealed Prohibition. None of those gave power to the gummint, and all of them gave power to the People.

What your talking about, are our bill of rights which was ment to be changed and added to.
I'm talking about our Constitution.

 

[Pogo]

Whenever the people chooses to change our Constitution or get rid of certain parts of it , gives power to the government and takes power away from the people.

Well that's clearly not true.

One Constitutional change gave power to ex-slaves. Another gave power to women. A third repealed Prohibition. None of those gave power to the gummint, and all of them gave power to the People.

What your talking about, are our bill of rights which was ment to be changed and added to.
I'm talking about our Constitution.

Amendments are part of the Constitution. They're the way we fix what didn't work or got outdated in the original. And it's the *only* way we "change" it, which is what you posted.

 

[peach174]

Whenever the people chooses to change our Constitution or get rid of certain parts of it , gives power to the government and takes power away from the people.

Well that's clearly not true.

One Constitutional change gave power to ex-slaves. Another gave power to women. A third repealed Prohibition. None of those gave power to the gummint, and all of them gave power to the People.

What your talking about, are our bill of rights which was ment to be changed and added to.
I'm talking about our Constitution.

Amendments are part of the Constitution. They're the way we fix what didn't work or got outdated in the original. And it's the *only* way we "change" it, which is what you posted.

I didn't say that they weren't.
They are two seprate documents, combined.
The first is rules for the Feds to follow. The Constitution..
The 2nd is the rights for the people. Bill of rights.

 

[Pogo]

Whenever the people chooses to change our Constitution or get rid of certain parts of it , gives power to the government and takes power away from the people.

Well that's clearly not true.

One Constitutional change gave power to ex-slaves. Another gave power to women. A third repealed Prohibition. None of those gave power to the gummint, and all of them gave power to the People.

What your talking about, are our bill of rights which was ment to be changed and added to.
I'm talking about our Constitution.

Amendments are part of the Constitution. They're the way we fix what didn't work or got outdated in the original. And it's the *only* way we "change" it, which is what you posted.

I didn't say that they weren't.
They are two seprate document, combined.
The first is rules for the Feds to follow.
The 2nd is the rights for the people.

Looks like we're off to another tangent though this one's less interesting.

But no -- Amendments are how we change the Constitution, always have been. They may not necessarily reverse something that previously existed, sometimes they refine it. For example another Amendment limits a President to two terms -- that didn't reverse anything, it just put a limitation on what was left open in the original. Another Amendment moved Inauguration Day from March to January. Those are all changes to the original.

If I read your intent correctly, what you're getting at is a question of bringing a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. That's one way to address its issues but not the only way. Many people don't realize the latitude given to the states in how they administer it. There's no requirement that they shove their votes as "winner take all" and ignore all their minority votes. In fact there are already two states that run a (slight) variant to that.

 

[peach174]

Whenever the people chooses to change our Constitution or get rid of certain parts of it , gives power to the government and takes power away from the people.

Well that's clearly not true.

One Constitutional change gave power to ex-slaves. Another gave power to women. A third repealed Prohibition. None of those gave power to the gummint, and all of them gave power to the People.

What your talking about, are our bill of rights which was ment to be changed and added to.
I'm talking about our Constitution.

Amendments are part of the Constitution. They're the way we fix what didn't work or got outdated in the original. And it's the *only* way we "change" it, which is what you posted.

I didn't say that they weren't.
They are two seprate document, combined.
The first is rules for the Feds to follow.
The 2nd is the rights for the people.

Looks like we're off to another tangent though this one's less interesting.

But no -- Amendments are how we change the Constitution, always have been. They may not necessarily reverse something that previously existed, sometimes they refine it. For example another Amendment limits a President to two terms -- that didn't reverse anything, it just put a limitation on what was left open in the original. Another Amendment moved Inauguration Day from March to January. Those are all changes to the original.

If I read your intent correctly, what you're getting at is a question of bringing a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. That's one way to address its issues but not the only way. Many people don't realize the latitude given to the states in how they administer it. There's no requirement that they shove their votes as "winner take all" and ignore all their minority votes. In fact there are already two states that run a (slight) variant to that.

Yes seems that we are.
I'm saying why we need to keep the electoral college.
How about getting that one understood to begin with?

The other will be more like a few days of arguments and I dont have the time now to do it.
This week is Thanksgiving and I have much baking and cooking to do.
Our VFW Ladies Aux. is doing pies, cookies and food basketes of free turkeys and all the trimmings for a complete dinners for our low income citizens.
Peace?

 

[Pogo]

Well that's clearly not true.

One Constitutional change gave power to ex-slaves. Another gave power to women. A third repealed Prohibition. None of those gave power to the gummint, and all of them gave power to the People.

What your talking about, are our bill of rights which was ment to be changed and added to.
I'm talking about our Constitution.

Amendments are part of the Constitution. They're the way we fix what didn't work or got outdated in the original. And it's the *only* way we "change" it, which is what you posted.

I didn't say that they weren't.
They are two seprate document, combined.
The first is rules for the Feds to follow.
The 2nd is the rights for the people.

Looks like we're off to another tangent though this one's less interesting.

But no -- Amendments are how we change the Constitution, always have been. They may not necessarily reverse something that previously existed, sometimes they refine it. For example another Amendment limits a President to two terms -- that didn't reverse anything, it just put a limitation on what was left open in the original. Another Amendment moved Inauguration Day from March to January. Those are all changes to the original.

If I read your intent correctly, what you're getting at is a question of bringing a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. That's one way to address its issues but not the only way. Many people don't realize the latitude given to the states in how they administer it. There's no requirement that they shove their votes as "winner take all" and ignore all their minority votes. In fact there are already two states that run a (slight) variant to that.

Yes seems that we are.
I'm saying why we need to keep the electoral college.
How about getting that one understood to begin with?

The other will be more like a few days of arguments and I dont have the time now to do it.
This week is Thanksgiving and I have much baking and cooking to do.
Our VFW Ladies Aux. is doing pies, cookies and food basketes of free turkeys and all the trimmings for a complete dinners for our low income citizens.
Peace?

I tellya what --- if there's a hammered dulcimer player there I'll show up and volunteer.

 

[peach174]

What your talking about, are our bill of rights which was ment to be changed and added to.
I'm talking about our Constitution.

Amendments are part of the Constitution. They're the way we fix what didn't work or got outdated in the original. And it's the *only* way we "change" it, which is what you posted.

I didn't say that they weren't.
They are two seprate document, combined.
The first is rules for the Feds to follow.
The 2nd is the rights for the people.

Looks like we're off to another tangent though this one's less interesting.

But no -- Amendments are how we change the Constitution, always have been. They may not necessarily reverse something that previously existed, sometimes they refine it. For example another Amendment limits a President to two terms -- that didn't reverse anything, it just put a limitation on what was left open in the original. Another Amendment moved Inauguration Day from March to January. Those are all changes to the original.

If I read your intent correctly, what you're getting at is a question of bringing a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. That's one way to address its issues but not the only way. Many people don't realize the latitude given to the states in how they administer it. There's no requirement that they shove their votes as "winner take all" and ignore all their minority votes. In fact there are already two states that run a (slight) variant to that.

Yes seems that we are.
I'm saying why we need to keep the electoral college.
How about getting that one understood to begin with?

The other will be more like a few days of arguments and I dont have the time now to do it.
This week is Thanksgiving and I have much baking and cooking to do.
Our VFW Ladies Aux. is doing pies, cookies and food basketes of free turkeys and all the trimmings for a complete dinners for our low income citizens.
Peace?

I tellya what --- if there's a hammered dulcimer player there I'll show up and volunteer.

The ladies are cooking on Monday and Tuesday. No men sorry. We dont trust you men around the pies, several just has to accidentally put their fingers in a few. .
Then Wednesday the men come in and fill up the baskets, then Delivers them.
On Thursday Morning the men cook the free turkey and ham dinners for the Vet's.
VFW on Mon and Tue.
My house for Wednesday and Thursday for our turkey day.
Thanks for the offer though.

 

[Contumacious]

Democracy will completely destroy our constitutional republic.

The motherfuckers want the most populous states , New York California Massachusetts - the most left wing fascist states to determine the outcome of elections.

We must RESIST by any means necessary.


.

 

[Pogo]

Amendments are part of the Constitution. They're the way we fix what didn't work or got outdated in the original. And it's the *only* way we "change" it, which is what you posted.

I didn't say that they weren't.
They are two seprate document, combined.
The first is rules for the Feds to follow.
The 2nd is the rights for the people.

Looks like we're off to another tangent though this one's less interesting.

But no -- Amendments are how we change the Constitution, always have been. They may not necessarily reverse something that previously existed, sometimes they refine it. For example another Amendment limits a President to two terms -- that didn't reverse anything, it just put a limitation on what was left open in the original. Another Amendment moved Inauguration Day from March to January. Those are all changes to the original.

If I read your intent correctly, what you're getting at is a question of bringing a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. That's one way to address its issues but not the only way. Many people don't realize the latitude given to the states in how they administer it. There's no requirement that they shove their votes as "winner take all" and ignore all their minority votes. In fact there are already two states that run a (slight) variant to that.

Yes seems that we are.
I'm saying why we need to keep the electoral college.
How about getting that one understood to begin with?

The other will be more like a few days of arguments and I dont have the time now to do it.
This week is Thanksgiving and I have much baking and cooking to do.
Our VFW Ladies Aux. is doing pies, cookies and food basketes of free turkeys and all the trimmings for a complete dinners for our low income citizens.
Peace?

I tellya what --- if there's a hammered dulcimer player there I'll show up and volunteer.

The ladies are cooking on Monday and Tuesday. No men sorry. We dont trust you men around the pies, several just has to accidentally put their fingers in a few. .
Then Wednesday the men come in and fill up the baskets, then Delivers them.
On Thursday Morning the men cook the free turkey and ham dinners for the Vet's.
VFW on Mon and Tue.
My house for Wednesday and Thursday for our turkey day.
Thanks for the offer though.

Well that is wise about the pies. Because you're right. They ain't safe.

But what if I bring my own hammered dulcimer? It's chromatic yanno.....

 

[Pogo]

Democracy will completely destroy our constitutional republic.

The motherfuckers want the most populous states , New York California Massachusetts - the most left wing fascist states to determine the outcome of elections.

We must RESIST by any means necessary.

"Massachusetts", clown breath? You done spelled "Texas" wrong.

 

[peach174]

I didn't say that they weren't.
They are two seprate document, combined.
The first is rules for the Feds to follow.
The 2nd is the rights for the people.

Looks like we're off to another tangent though this one's less interesting.

But no -- Amendments are how we change the Constitution, always have been. They may not necessarily reverse something that previously existed, sometimes they refine it. For example another Amendment limits a President to two terms -- that didn't reverse anything, it just put a limitation on what was left open in the original. Another Amendment moved Inauguration Day from March to January. Those are all changes to the original.

If I read your intent correctly, what you're getting at is a question of bringing a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. That's one way to address its issues but not the only way. Many people don't realize the latitude given to the states in how they administer it. There's no requirement that they shove their votes as "winner take all" and ignore all their minority votes. In fact there are already two states that run a (slight) variant to that.

Yes seems that we are.
I'm saying why we need to keep the electoral college.
How about getting that one understood to begin with?

The other will be more like a few days of arguments and I dont have the time now to do it.
This week is Thanksgiving and I have much baking and cooking to do.
Our VFW Ladies Aux. is doing pies, cookies and food basketes of free turkeys and all the trimmings for a complete dinners for our low income citizens.
Peace?

I tellya what --- if there's a hammered dulcimer player there I'll show up and volunteer.

The ladies are cooking on Monday and Tuesday. No men sorry. We dont trust you men around the pies, several just has to accidentally put their fingers in a few. .
Then Wednesday the men come in and fill up the baskets, then Delivers them.
On Thursday Morning the men cook the free turkey and ham dinners for the Vet's.
VFW on Mon and Tue.
My house for Wednesday and Thursday for our turkey day.
Thanks for the offer though.

Well that is wise about the pies. Because you're right. They ain't safe.

But what if I bring my own hammered dulcimer? It's chromatic yanno.....

Well you now got my number, 16

 

[Esmeralda]

But she did win. You just won't acknowledge it.

Thank you for demonstrating how liberals are devoid of reality.

Funny, liberals were demanding Republicans accept the outcome of the election....but after Hillary loses...well, we have people like you.

Hillary has been REJECTED by the American people for a 2nd and FINAL time.

Have fun the next 4 years supporting 'President' Hillary, especially after she goes to jail as 'promised'.

No, the American PEOPLE chose Hillary Clinton.

Yes they did. The Electoral College is outdated and makes no sense in modern times. We elected Clinton by a majority vote and she should be president.