This Is Why We Have An Electoral College

[Carl in Michigan]

And it came about because those grey zones supported slavery while the blue ones opposed slavery.

Did they?

Simple economic dependence. Big cities didn't need slaves, and thus opposed enslaving human beings. The rural areas needed slaves for their economic prosperity, hence their support for the practice.

China thinks slaves are useful in manufacturing

 

[protectionist]

Yeah, some people just don't understand this concept.

The got MISeducated in America's leftist school system. They don't realize that either.

 

[protectionist]

Looks like Trump forgot the rules and lost. And lost bad 306 to 232. And by 7 million votes on top of that.

Yeah, the Democrats didn't even bother to make it look real. That how comatose they figured the US pubic to be.

 

[protectionist]

The Electoral process is dead in the US. So is our republic.

The Democrat Dirty Tricks Department has learned how to steal elections by the scam of counting unverified mail in ballots in Democrat controlled swing districts.

They have graduated from knowing how to do it in a few districts to knowing how to do in any district where they control the counting.

We will never have another honest election. If anybody thinks otherwise they are being either naive or delusional.

I agree totally. Sad to say, but a military coup may be the only answer to put America back on its feet, if it isn't already destroyed too much, by Biden's Mexican border welcome mat, and his busing program.

 

[protectionist]

The states elect the President only in the case of no candidate getting a majority of EC votes.

The EC gives suffrage based on both population, along with a bias. And granted it to the legislatures, not the people.

The states elect the president, by means of the Electoral College.

 

[protectionist]

And Vladimir Putin helped.

That's why a grand jury indicted 12 russians in the GRU for election interference.

Drop in the bucket.

 

[protectionist]

It's called giving those supporting slavery an advantage to make up for their lack of population. Making their suffrage big enough to overturn the will of the majority.

Slavery ended 156 years ago. Nobody living today was even alive then.

 

[protectionist]

Back to THAT shit? PFFFFFTTTT! The only thing that happened is that people hated Hitlery more than anything. except in Screw York ,LA ,and DC.

Armpits of America.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah...few people live in the gray areas. For good reason.

 

[protectionist]

Not everyone would agree that zones are more important than people.

90% of the nation is hardly a "zone"

 

[protectionist]

Yeah...few people live in the gray areas. For good reason.

FALSE! More than a hundred million people live in the gray areas, for good reasons.

 

[protectionist]

I'm stating a historical fact. That as long as they had a vote in congress, they were able to stop any legislation from abolishing the practice of slavery.

This thread is about the ELECTORAL COLLEGE vs the popular vote. Stop posting off topic. Further off topic posts will be reported. You have been warned.

 

[protectionist]

Quite true but one zone can have one person and another a million people. Would you say they two zones are equals? Or, there can be two zones, each with one person, and a third zone with one million people. Should the two, single-person zones be able to dictate to the third, million-person zone? If you were one of those million would want to change the that system?

But no zones have one person, or anywhere near that few, so why deflect into that meaningless scenario, other than to cloud the issue ?

 

[protectionist]

So the slaveholders could use their slaves for political gain.

I know that your liberal media is constantly bombarding you with old, black & white footage of 1960s civil rights protests, and old black & white photos of pre-civil war days, and that you are immersed in that gobbledegook, but it really is time that you stepped into the present world. It is 2021.

It is a time when the Electoral College prevents a few small sections of the country from dominating 90% of the rest of the country. Few scenarios in American politics have been more important and useful.

 

[Sunsettommy]

How come many democrats forgot to acknowledge the their party affiliation change, why does Robert Byrd, George Wallace, Thomas O Neil, Carl Albert, Scoop Jackson, Warren Magnussen, Thomas Foley, Mike Wallace and more NEVER changed to Republican.

You fell for another lie.....

Some changed their positions while holding onto their party, while others like Phil Graham, and Strom Thurman changed parties because it was easier to switch than fight.

I notice you didn't comment on the abject failure of the Republicans switching to the Democrat party.........

Give it up Gene, you have been badly snookered.

 

[protectionist]

I notice you didn't comment on the abject failure of the Republicans switching to the Democrat party.........

Give it up Gene, you have been badly snookered.

The TOPIC IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Please post ON TOPIC, or not at all.

 

[San Souci]

Yeah...few people live in the gray areas. For good reason.

No Humans live in Screw York or LA.

 

[Leo123]

No Humans live in Screw York or LA.

True, they are voting bots at this point.

 

[San Souci]

No Humans live in Screw York or LA.

True, they are voting bots at this point.

No. Just Unpersons.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why does the presidency means so much?

Is it possible that the government powers are not balanced or constructed correctly?

What are the government powers?

How is it that Joe Biden is turning out a bunch of executive orders that upend the tranquility we had going?

Dear protectionist and Prof.Lunaphiles
I can see what Prof L adds about the Presidential role indirectly connects to the OP regarding the Electoral vote split (with the most densely populous urban areas voting Blue/Liberal and the larger areas of land showing Red/Conservative).

1. First to answer the point Prof L brings up:
It is the LIBERAL belief in statist/centralized authority of govt to "promote the general welfare" and "represent the collective needs of the people" that causes this disproportionate and unchecked dependence on the roles of Presidential executive orders and Judicial Court orders which the Liberals rely on to "establish their rights in public policy".

Conservatives by the belief in reserving rights of people and states, usually don't depend on federal govt or Presidential authority as much which should be limited to EXTERNAL issues of military security and interstate commerce. So the emphasis on the physical land areas predominantly Red corresponds to Conservative beliefs about the role of Govt.

But only because Liberals enacted so much social programming through federal laws and executive orders, it became necessary "for even Conservatives" to go through federal processes to remove or reform those policies they don't even believe belong in federal govt in the first place.

So the growing authority shifted to orders by Courts or by the President, by the Liberal political religion and beliefs in Statism, made those positions in govt more critical.

2. As for relating back to the OP.

The hyped up and inflated role of Presidents is used to get voters to the polls.

In particular, tying health care, education, wages and other benefits to getting a Liberal Democrat elected drives their targeted populations to vote by the busloads.

So indirectly, Prof L post asking where did this inflated role of President come from, that overrides Constitutional limits, points out the reason for the leftwing voting patterns in national elections.

It is liking hyping up all Catholics to go vote for their pope.

Conservatives don't normally depend on the President "for subjective social policies," the Liberal Left does that. But that is enough to incite both sides to vote in patterns consistent with Liberal dependence on govt "for social benefits in higher demand among high density urban populations" vs Conservative voters in areas where greater independence from govt is the predominant approach.