The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Pogo]

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

The vast majority of the nitwits who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college have no idea how difficult that would be! It would require a 2/3 vote of approval of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that will ever happen?

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

 

[Pop23]

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

The vast majority of the nitwits who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college have no idea how difficult that would be! It would require a 2/3 vote of approval of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that will ever happen?

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

No, it simply takes the numbers that have been pointed out.

Unless you get 3/4 of the states, those being the Stated that LOSS under your democracy, you loss.

Get going, you Dems painted yourselves, because of your dumb fuckery, into a tight little corner.

All you have left is dumn fuckery and whining.

Good job morons.

 

[peach174]

We just did Pogo.

No, we did not. Cultural values simply do not work that way. That's why for instance FGM still goes on. It's thousands of years old. Can't be changed overnight. Even cigarette smoking ---- it's less prevalent than it was 50 or 75 years ago ..... but it still goes on.

Pogo
Washington D.C. representation just went from the P.C. left ideology, to the conservative, moderate ideology and did it by winning overwhemely by counties with several blue counties turning red thanks to the E.C.
You want the American people to give up that power.

NONE of that has anything to do with cultural values Peach.

That's even leaving aside the suggestion that somehow Donald Rump represents "conservatism", which is irrelevant but also absurd.

Political ideology is cultural values Pogo.

No it absolutely is not.

Cultural values is how you dress and how you talk and whether its 'appropriate' to do or say this or that. It's also whether you practice FGM or smoke. It's what you eat and how you like your music.. NONE of that has to do with political ideologies.

Exactly and the P.C. crowd for the last 40 years supports law breakers and bullies and the minority ruling over the majority.
It's exactly why the P.C. crowd doesn't understand the heartland and are willing to give more power to the government.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

The vast majority of the nitwits who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college have no idea how difficult that would be! It would require a 2/3 vote of approval of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that will ever happen?

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

No, it simply takes the numbers that have been pointed out.

Unless you get 3/4 of the states, those being the Stated that LOSS under your democracy, you loss.

Get going, you Dems painted yourselves, because of your dumb fuckery, into a tight little corner.

All you have left is dumn fuckery and whining.

Good job morons.

the leftards are along way from getting 38 states to ratify any of their poisonous ideas

and the way it looks they are in line to move further down the line

--LOL

 

[Redfish]

have you written to your congressmen and senators about it? have you started a petition in your state? have you done anything constructive about something that you feel so strongly about?

NONE of those, by definition, would show up here, would they Jockomo?

You don't have an argument here. Nothing in the world prevents me from expressing an analysis here, least of all a fascist who wants discussion "shut up" when he's not getting his way in it.

or are you all talk like your hero obozo the great?

Link to that simile?


Nope. Guess not.

I say STFU to anyone who rants and raves but does nothing, so I think it was an appropriate comment for you.

Because you can't handle the points.
I already noted that.

I fully understand your points and your rationale. I simply do not agree with either. The EC gives voice to all americans in presidential elections. Without it the large population centers could control our elections, note the word "could". That possibility presents an unacceptable option and the founders created the EC to prevent such abuses as the large cities might employ in order to put their interests at the top of the heap.

Sure, its not perfect, but no system is perfect.

Whats funny and somewhat pathetic about this discussion is that most of the EC objectors are Hillary supporters who cannot deal with the fact that she lost.

You claim to not be one of those, but I doubt it seriously.

 

[Redfish]

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

The vast majority of the nitwits who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college have no idea how difficult that would be! It would require a 2/3 vote of approval of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that will ever happen?

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

then I ask you again, since you feel so strongly about this what have YOU done to make it happen? If the answer is nothing but talk, then the STFU is appropriate.

 

[Pogo]

I fully understand your points and your rationale. I simply do not agree with either. The EC gives voice to all americans in presidential elections. Without it the large population centers could control our elections, note the word "could". That possibility presents an unacceptable option and the founders created the EC to prevent such abuses as the large cities might employ in order to put their interests at the top of the heap.

Again -- these "large population centers" did not exist as a factor when the EC was drawn up --- most people lived on farms. So that's not the design at all. Nor does your rationale work anyway --- your arbitrary classification of voters according to where they live is just that --- arbitrary. No "large population center" votes unanimously for a given candidate any more than any state does. That argument simply does not hunt --- where a voter lives has no bearing on how much their vote counts. None. Zero.

To your 2nd sentence -- again as stated throughout this thread and every other thread throughout this campaign and before it ---- the EC does not "give voice" at all --- it takes voice away. You''re sitting right now in a state where no voter has a voice in a POTUS election. Sixteen years ago I was in the same state, which is why I cast a protest vote for a 3P. It was a drop in the bucket but it was the only way I could make my vote count for anything.

Don't you GET that?

Whats funny and somewhat pathetic about this discussion is that most of the EC objectors are Hillary supporters who cannot deal with the fact that she lost.

You claim to not be one of those, but I doubt it seriously.

Then your task of explaining all my previous history making these same points on this same topic, way before the election and before the candidates were nominated, remains untouched.

 

[Pogo]

No, we did not. Cultural values simply do not work that way. That's why for instance FGM still goes on. It's thousands of years old. Can't be changed overnight. Even cigarette smoking ---- it's less prevalent than it was 50 or 75 years ago ..... but it still goes on.

Pogo
Washington D.C. representation just went from the P.C. left ideology, to the conservative, moderate ideology and did it by winning overwhemely by counties with several blue counties turning red thanks to the E.C.
You want the American people to give up that power.

NONE of that has anything to do with cultural values Peach.

That's even leaving aside the suggestion that somehow Donald Rump represents "conservatism", which is irrelevant but also absurd.

Political ideology is cultural values Pogo.

No it absolutely is not.

Cultural values is how you dress and how you talk and whether its 'appropriate' to do or say this or that. It's also whether you practice FGM or smoke. It's what you eat and how you like your music.. NONE of that has to do with political ideologies.

Exactly and the P.C. crowd for the last 40 years supports law breakers and bullies and the minority ruling over the majority.
It's exactly why the P.C. crowd doesn't understand the heartland and are willing to give more power to the government.

"The PC crowd"?? You're actually suggesting that got voted out?

The "PC crowd" is all too alive and well Peach. That's not changing any time soon. Here they are in a thread created just yesterday --- trying to micromanage private conversations between co-workers. Nothing has changed on that front.

 

[Pogo]

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

The vast majority of the nitwits who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college have no idea how difficult that would be! It would require a 2/3 vote of approval of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that will ever happen?

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

No, it simply takes the numbers that have been pointed out.

Unless you get 3/4 of the states, those being the Stated that LOSS under your democracy, you loss.

Get going, you Dems painted yourselves, because of your dumb fuckery, into a tight little corner.

All you have left is dumn fuckery and whining.

Good job morons.

I'm not a "Dem", illiterate hack. Nor is your second sentence even coherent English. "You loss"?
Go learn to read AND write.

 

[Pogo]

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

The vast majority of the nitwits who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college have no idea how difficult that would be! It would require a 2/3 vote of approval of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that will ever happen?

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

then I ask you again, since you feel so strongly about this what have YOU done to make it happen? If the answer is nothing but talk, then the STFU is appropriate.

It would seem "STFU" is all you have since you can't handle the points.

 

[peach174]

Pogo
Washington D.C. representation just went from the P.C. left ideology, to the conservative, moderate ideology and did it by winning overwhemely by counties with several blue counties turning red thanks to the E.C.
You want the American people to give up that power.

NONE of that has anything to do with cultural values Peach.

That's even leaving aside the suggestion that somehow Donald Rump represents "conservatism", which is irrelevant but also absurd.

Political ideology is cultural values Pogo.

No it absolutely is not.

Cultural values is how you dress and how you talk and whether its 'appropriate' to do or say this or that. It's also whether you practice FGM or smoke. It's what you eat and how you like your music.. NONE of that has to do with political ideologies.

Exactly and the P.C. crowd for the last 40 years supports law breakers and bullies and the minority ruling over the majority.
It's exactly why the P.C. crowd doesn't understand the heartland and are willing to give more power to the government.

"The PC crowd"?? You're actually suggesting that got voted out?

The "PC crowd" is all too alive and well Peach. That's not changing any time soon. Here they are in a thread created just yesterday --- trying to micromanage private conversations between co-workers. Nothing has changed on that front.

Pelosi agrees.
Well see how well that goes.

 

[Pop23]

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

The vast majority of the nitwits who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college have no idea how difficult that would be! It would require a 2/3 vote of approval of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that will ever happen?

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

No, it simply takes the numbers that have been pointed out.

Unless you get 3/4 of the states, those being the Stated that LOSS under your democracy, you loss.

Get going, you Dems painted yourselves, because of your dumb fuckery, into a tight little corner.

All you have left is dumn fuckery and whining.

Good job morons.

I'm not a "Dem", illiterate hack. Nor is your second sentence even coherent English. "You loss"?
Go learn to read AND write.

Must be wonderful to correct spelling errors and still be a loser.

 

[Pogo]

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

The vast majority of the nitwits who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college have no idea how difficult that would be! It would require a 2/3 vote of approval of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that will ever happen?

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

No, it simply takes the numbers that have been pointed out.

Unless you get 3/4 of the states, those being the Stated that LOSS under your democracy, you loss.

Get going, you Dems painted yourselves, because of your dumb fuckery, into a tight little corner.

All you have left is dumn fuckery and whining.

Good job morons.

I'm not a "Dem", illiterate hack. Nor is your second sentence even coherent English. "You loss"?
Go learn to read AND write.

Must be wonderful to correct spelling errors and still be a loser.

Must be pure bliss to make posts despite having absolutely nothing to contribute.

 

[Pop23]

The vast majority of the nitwits who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college have no idea how difficult that would be! It would require a 2/3 vote of approval of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that will ever happen?

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

No, it simply takes the numbers that have been pointed out.

Unless you get 3/4 of the states, those being the Stated that LOSS under your democracy, you loss.

Get going, you Dems painted yourselves, because of your dumb fuckery, into a tight little corner.

All you have left is dumn fuckery and whining.

Good job morons.

I'm not a "Dem", illiterate hack. Nor is your second sentence even coherent English. "You loss"?
Go learn to read AND write.

Must be wonderful to correct spelling errors and still be a loser.

Must be pure bliss to make posts despite having absolutely nothing to contribute.

You would know better then me.

But you already knew that, huh?

 

[Pogo]

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

No, it simply takes the numbers that have been pointed out.

Unless you get 3/4 of the states, those being the Stated that LOSS under your democracy, you loss.

Get going, you Dems painted yourselves, because of your dumb fuckery, into a tight little corner.

All you have left is dumn fuckery and whining.

Good job morons.

I'm not a "Dem", illiterate hack. Nor is your second sentence even coherent English. "You loss"?
Go learn to read AND write.

Must be wonderful to correct spelling errors and still be a loser.

Must be pure bliss to make posts despite having absolutely nothing to contribute.

You would know better then me.

But you already knew that, huh?

Have you in fact made any point in this thread at all? Even one?

Or are you just trying to bury the topic under a troll bridge?

 

[percysunshine]

.
Is this still an electoral college debate?

I vote "Aces dudes!". Best frickin idea in the universe...even if y'all died three hundred years ago.

 

[Redfish]

I fully understand your points and your rationale. I simply do not agree with either. The EC gives voice to all americans in presidential elections. Without it the large population centers could control our elections, note the word "could". That possibility presents an unacceptable option and the founders created the EC to prevent such abuses as the large cities might employ in order to put their interests at the top of the heap.

Again -- these "large population centers" did not exist as a factor when the EC was drawn up --- most people lived on farms. So that's not the design at all. Nor does your rationale work anyway --- your arbitrary classification of voters according to where they live is just that --- arbitrary. No "large population center" votes unanimously for a given candidate any more than any state does. That argument simply does not hunt --- where a voter lives has no bearing on how much their vote counts. None. Zero.

To your 2nd sentence -- again as stated throughout this thread and every other thread throughout this campaign and before it ---- the EC does not "give voice" at all --- it takes voice away. You''re sitting right now in a state where no voter has a voice in a POTUS election. Sixteen years ago I was in the same state, which is why I cast a protest vote for a 3P. It was a drop in the bucket but it was the only way I could make my vote count for anything.

Don't you GET that?

Whats funny and somewhat pathetic about this discussion is that most of the EC objectors are Hillary supporters who cannot deal with the fact that she lost.

You claim to not be one of those, but I doubt it seriously.

Then your task of explaining all my previous history making these same points on this same topic, way before the election and before the candidates were nominated, remains untouched.

The fact remains, the large population centers (mostly democrats) would control our elections without the EC. I understand that that is what you want, I get that.

 

[Redfish]

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

The vast majority of the nitwits who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college have no idea how difficult that would be! It would require a 2/3 vote of approval of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that will ever happen?

It has happened over a dozen times since the Bill of Rights. All it would take is political will. And that starts with examining the issue, which is what this thread is. That's why those who can't handle that analysis want it to "shut the **** up" (their exact words).

then I ask you again, since you feel so strongly about this what have YOU done to make it happen? If the answer is nothing but talk, then the STFU is appropriate.

It would seem "STFU" is all you have since you can't handle the points.

so you confirm that you are all talk and no action. Got it.

 

[Pogo]

I fully understand your points and your rationale. I simply do not agree with either. The EC gives voice to all americans in presidential elections. Without it the large population centers could control our elections, note the word "could". That possibility presents an unacceptable option and the founders created the EC to prevent such abuses as the large cities might employ in order to put their interests at the top of the heap.

Again -- these "large population centers" did not exist as a factor when the EC was drawn up --- most people lived on farms. So that's not the design at all. Nor does your rationale work anyway --- your arbitrary classification of voters according to where they live is just that --- arbitrary. No "large population center" votes unanimously for a given candidate any more than any state does. That argument simply does not hunt --- where a voter lives has no bearing on how much their vote counts. None. Zero.

To your 2nd sentence -- again as stated throughout this thread and every other thread throughout this campaign and before it ---- the EC does not "give voice" at all --- it takes voice away. You''re sitting right now in a state where no voter has a voice in a POTUS election. Sixteen years ago I was in the same state, which is why I cast a protest vote for a 3P. It was a drop in the bucket but it was the only way I could make my vote count for anything.

Don't you GET that?

Whats funny and somewhat pathetic about this discussion is that most of the EC objectors are Hillary supporters who cannot deal with the fact that she lost.

You claim to not be one of those, but I doubt it seriously.

Then your task of explaining all my previous history making these same points on this same topic, way before the election and before the candidates were nominated, remains untouched.

The fact remains, the large population centers (mostly democrats) would control our elections without the EC. I understand that that is what you want, I get that.

Translation: "my candidate couldn't win the pop vote, waaah".

Poster please. Grow up. You don't get to suppress the votes that go against the way you want. And it's noted that you didn't have the balls to address the actual points in my post at all.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I fully understand your points and your rationale. I simply do not agree with either. The EC gives voice to all americans in presidential elections. Without it the large population centers could control our elections, note the word "could". That possibility presents an unacceptable option and the founders created the EC to prevent such abuses as the large cities might employ in order to put their interests at the top of the heap.

Again -- these "large population centers" did not exist as a factor when the EC was drawn up --- most people lived on farms. So that's not the design at all. Nor does your rationale work anyway --- your arbitrary classification of voters according to where they live is just that --- arbitrary. No "large population center" votes unanimously for a given candidate any more than any state does. That argument simply does not hunt --- where a voter lives has no bearing on how much their vote counts. None. Zero.

To your 2nd sentence -- again as stated throughout this thread and every other thread throughout this campaign and before it ---- the EC does not "give voice" at all --- it takes voice away. You''re sitting right now in a state where no voter has a voice in a POTUS election. Sixteen years ago I was in the same state, which is why I cast a protest vote for a 3P. It was a drop in the bucket but it was the only way I could make my vote count for anything.

Don't you GET that?

Whats funny and somewhat pathetic about this discussion is that most of the EC objectors are Hillary supporters who cannot deal with the fact that she lost.

You claim to not be one of those, but I doubt it seriously.

Then your task of explaining all my previous history making these same points on this same topic, way before the election and before the candidates were nominated, remains untouched.

The fact remains, the large population centers (mostly democrats) would control our elections without the EC. I understand that that is what you want, I get that.

Translation: "my candidate couldn't win the pop vote, waaah".

Poster please. Grow up. You don't get to suppress the votes that go against the way you want. And it's noted that you didn't have the balls to address the actual points in my post at all.

Translation~ I am going to whine like a little ***** for four years.

Get over it pogo , not a damn thing you or your dems can do about it.