The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Rustic]

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

More people in more states voted for trump... 30 as opposed to 20.
This country can't have crazy Cali determining the presidency… and survive through it.

true, but if you look at the voting map of Ca by county or congressional district, Trump wins more of them. The libs may be ramming their own petard up their own ass on this.

Congressional Districts are bullshit. Purposely engineered to give one party control. But regardless how the distribution was, something like four million Californians voted for Rump, and the EC will see to it that their vote is ignored. Therein lies the point.

No reason for small rural states to vote in presidential elections without the EC... one major city would nullify all of their votes if there was just a popular vote. Fact

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

r why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.


Do i vote for them in your state?

Damn you are such a moron

 

[easyt65]

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.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

r why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.


Do i vote for them in your state?

Damn you are such a moron

I wish I could have voted to help kick Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi out years ago!

 

[Wyatt earp]

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

r why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.


Do i vote for them in your state?

Damn you are such a moron

I wish I could have voted to help kick Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi out years ago!

Exactly thats why pogo is such a silly moron who dont know what the defintion of what the United States means

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dem super delegates good, electoral college bad

 

[Rustic]

Dem super delegates good, electoral college bad

Progressives are so full of hypocrisy they can't see the forest through the trees… Fact

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

I've made a total of exactly zero (0) posts about "who I want in office". This is all about the process called the Electoral College, and it always has been, and in fact it will continue to be.

But it's instructive that you can't handle that topic so you try to pervert it into something else. That's so cute.

This is about you, and the other leftists throwing a temper tantrum because you didn't get your way. Because you were not able to disenfranchise voters in 48 states, your choice lost. Hence the fit you throw.

It's very simply, without the EC, California and New York decide every presidential election. Because these are Meccas of leftism, you desire this, you see it as a means of ensuring power for your party. The problem you have is the Constitution. Actually, that is the root of ALL of your problems in creating the workers paradise that you seek. The EC is defined in the Constitution. Prior to this election, your masters might have believed that people is "fly over country" were so stupid they would relinquish all voice in the process. But the unwashed masses that you have such contempt for pulled a fast one, they defied you. You want them to surrender there political voice, but they wouldn't even elect Hillary as they were ordered to do.

You have zero chance of a successful Constitutional amendment. Without Hillary to appoint openly corrupt justices, you have no chance of the judiciary subverting the Constitution for the party.

Hence you are impotent and can do nothing but throw your temper tantrum here and on the Soros hate site.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Congressional Districts are bullshit.

Oh really? So you not only demand that California and New York decide EVERY presidential election, you also demand that Oakland or San Francisco decide who will "represent" the interests of Yorba Linda and Anaheim in congress..

You are a fascist thug, 100%

Purposely engineered to give one party control. But regardless how the distribution was, something like four million Californians voted for Rump, and the EC will see to it that their vote is ignored. Therein lies the point.

You seek to discard the voice of everyone outside of densely populated urban jungles.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

You fixed Donald Rump's words.
Lot o' that going around, but in this case he had it right.

You're invited at this point to prove the contrary. No one's done it yet.

Rump?

What a childish little fascist thug you are.

Grow up, Huffer.

 

[jon_berzerk]

[

You fixed Donald Rump's words.
Lot o' that going around, but in this case he had it right.

You're invited at this point to prove the contrary. No one's done it yet.

Rump?

What a childish little fascist thug you are.

Grow up, Huffer.

impossible request

 

[Pogo]

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.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

r why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.


Do i vote for them in your state?

Damn you are such a moron

Some day when you actually learn English it will dawn on you that I didn't say anything remotely like that.
You'll be pretty embarrassed at that point.

Exactly thats why pogo is such a silly moron who dont know what the defintion of what the United States means

And you'll also learn that "Pogo" is a singular, not a plural.

And then finally you might even be able to figure out that the "definition of what the United States means", said the Department of Redundancy Department, has been my entire point here all along.

And they you'll be even more embarrassed.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

r why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.


Do i vote for them in your state?

Damn you are such a moron

Some day when you actually learn English it will dawn on you that I didn't say anything remotely like that.
You'll be pretty embarrassed at that point.

You are real bad at this
.

I burned your ass and your to stupid to even know it

 

[Pogo]

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Never said they did.
Did reading comprehension class turn you away again? Those meanies.

Since yet another point has deftly eluded you it's once again up to me to explain. You see Grasshopper, in the example above you have one set of states translating into 75 Electoral Votes, which were won by a collective margin of 224k (or if you like an average of 56,000 per state). In the other set you have the same number of EVs, won by a collective margin of over five million (or about 1.3 million avg/state) --- for the same return.

So in set two, a level of 22.7 times more voters chose the winning candidate than chose the winner of set one --- yet both sets won exactly the same number of EVs.

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Are you going to make the case that it's the same dollar and should be worth a dollar everywhere?

Why not?

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Thats how it basicaly is you brain dead moron

NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's kind of why I just made that point.
A point I can't help noticing garnered no response other than your agreeing with it.

 

[Pogo]

You're invited at this point to prove the contrary. No one's done it yet.

Prove it's a disaster to Democrats. )

It isn't my point that it's a "disaster to Democrats" now is it Shirley?
I ain't posting about "Democrats" or "Republicans" or "parties". Never have been. I'm posting about voters.

The original quote is by Donald Rump and calls it a disaster for democracy --- not "Democrats". The distinction is prolly way over your head though.

Just look at all the gnashing of teeth and crying by snowflakes. Funny how the only time it's a problem is when Libs lose the election by electoral vote and 'possibly' win via popular vote. (Don't forget to subtract all those illegals' votes

See your doctor.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Never said they did.
Did reading comprehension class turn you away again? Those meanies.

Since yet another point has deftly eluded you it's once again up to me to explain. You see Grasshopper, in the example above you have one set of states translating into 75 Electoral Votes, which were won by a collective margin of 224k (or if you like an average of 56,000 per state). In the other set you have the same number of EVs, won by a collective margin of over five million (or about 1.3 million avg/state) --- for the same return.

So in set two, a level of 22.7 times more voters chose the winning candidate than chose the winner of set one --- yet both sets won exactly the same number of EVs.

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Are you going to make the case that it's the same dollar and should be worth a dollar everywhere?

Why not?

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Thats how it basicaly is you brain dead moron

NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's kind of why I just made that point.
A point I can't help noticing garnered no response other than your agreeing with it.

Now you change your post you idiot moron who still doesnt know what the Deffintion of the United states is thats why your stuck on stupid and want to use the popular vote instead

 

[Pogo]

[

You fixed Donald Rump's words.
Lot o' that going around, but in this case he had it right.

You're invited at this point to prove the contrary. No one's done it yet.

Rump?

What a childish little fascist thug you are.

Grow up, Huffer.

Lemme get this straight Pothead --- a year and a half in an

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Never said they did.
Did reading comprehension class turn you away again? Those meanies.

Since yet another point has deftly eluded you it's once again up to me to explain. You see Grasshopper, in the example above you have one set of states translating into 75 Electoral Votes, which were won by a collective margin of 224k (or if you like an average of 56,000 per state). In the other set you have the same number of EVs, won by a collective margin of over five million (or about 1.3 million avg/state) --- for the same return.

So in set two, a level of 22.7 times more voters chose the winning candidate than chose the winner of set one --- yet both sets won exactly the same number of EVs.

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Are you going to make the case that it's the same dollar and should be worth a dollar everywhere?

Why not?

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Thats how it basicaly is you brain dead moron

NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's kind of why I just made that point.
A point I can't help noticing garnered no response other than your agreeing with it.

Now you change your post you idiot moron who still doesnt know what the Deffintion of the United states is thats why your stuck on stupid and want to use the popular vote instead

No cretin, I changed nothing. I've been busy all day -- the post is exactly as it started. This is the price you pay for not understanding English.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[

You fixed Donald Rump's words.
Lot o' that going around, but in this case he had it right.

You're invited at this point to prove the contrary. No one's done it yet.

Rump?

What a childish little fascist thug you are.

Grow up, Huffer.

Lemme get this straight Pothead --- a year and a half in an

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Never said they did.
Did reading comprehension class turn you away again? Those meanies.

Since yet another point has deftly eluded you it's once again up to me to explain. You see Grasshopper, in the example above you have one set of states translating into 75 Electoral Votes, which were won by a collective margin of 224k (or if you like an average of 56,000 per state). In the other set you have the same number of EVs, won by a collective margin of over five million (or about 1.3 million avg/state) --- for the same return.

So in set two, a level of 22.7 times more voters chose the winning candidate than chose the winner of set one --- yet both sets won exactly the same number of EVs.

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Are you going to make the case that it's the same dollar and should be worth a dollar everywhere?

Why not?

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Thats how it basicaly is you brain dead moron

NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's kind of why I just made that point.
A point I can't help noticing garnered no response other than your agreeing with it.

Now you change your post you idiot moron who still doesnt know what the Deffintion of the United states is thats why your stuck on stupid and want to use the popular vote instead

No cretin, I changed nothing. I've been busy all day -- the post is exactly as it started. This is the price you pay for not understanding English.

You liar i posted my comment rigt after yours then i go bavk to it and you changed.


So now pogo doent know the deffintion of the united states and a fibber how pathetic even for you...

 

[Pogo]

[

You fixed Donald Rump's words.
Lot o' that going around, but in this case he had it right.

You're invited at this point to prove the contrary. No one's done it yet.

Rump?

What a childish little fascist thug you are.

Grow up, Huffer.

Lemme get this straight Pothead --- a year and a half in an

Never said they did.
Did reading comprehension class turn you away again? Those meanies.

Since yet another point has deftly eluded you it's once again up to me to explain. You see Grasshopper, in the example above you have one set of states translating into 75 Electoral Votes, which were won by a collective margin of 224k (or if you like an average of 56,000 per state). In the other set you have the same number of EVs, won by a collective margin of over five million (or about 1.3 million avg/state) --- for the same return.

So in set two, a level of 22.7 times more voters chose the winning candidate than chose the winner of set one --- yet both sets won exactly the same number of EVs.

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Are you going to make the case that it's the same dollar and should be worth a dollar everywhere?

Why not?

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Thats how it basicaly is you brain dead moron

NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's kind of why I just made that point.
A point I can't help noticing garnered no response other than your agreeing with it.

Now you change your post you idiot moron who still doesnt know what the Deffintion of the United states is thats why your stuck on stupid and want to use the popular vote instead

No cretin, I changed nothing. I've been busy all day -- the post is exactly as it started. This is the price you pay for not understanding English.

You liar i posted my comment rigt after yours then i go bavk to it and you changed.


So now pogo doent know the deffintion of the united states and a fibber how pathetic even for you...

Speeko Englishey?

Guess not.

I edited nothing you flaming pathetic hack. You painted yourself into a corner. Seems to be a habit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[

You fixed Donald Rump's words.
Lot o' that going around, but in this case he had it right.

You're invited at this point to prove the contrary. No one's done it yet.

Rump?

What a childish little fascist thug you are.

Grow up, Huffer.

Lemme get this straight Pothead --- a year and a half in an

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Thats how it basicaly is you brain dead moron

NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's kind of why I just made that point.
A point I can't help noticing garnered no response other than your agreeing with it.

Now you change your post you idiot moron who still doesnt know what the Deffintion of the United states is thats why your stuck on stupid and want to use the popular vote instead

No cretin, I changed nothing. I've been busy all day -- the post is exactly as it started. This is the price you pay for not understanding English.

You liar i posted my comment rigt after yours then i go bavk to it and you changed.


So now pogo doent know the deffintion of the united states and a fibber how pathetic even for you...

Speeko Englishey?

Guess not.

I edited nothing you flaming pathetic hack. You painted yourself into a corner. Seems to be a habit.

What are you crying now like on election night people are agreeing they saw what you did big fat fibber

 

[Redfish]

amazing, the party that lets super delegates pick their candidate is complaining about the electoral college