Walz says abolish the Electoral College

[Nostra]

What? I'm not giving States anything. You're giving States some weird authority by supporting the electoral college, moron. You don't even know how to formulate a coherent thought, let alone a coherent argument. You don't even understand what your argument is about.

I know exactly what my argument is. Unfortunately for you Simp, it's apparently over your sloped head.

The Founding Fathers are light years smarter than you. The didn't want one heavily populated area dictating to the rest of the country. No way LA County should have more say than 42 individual states.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know exactly what my argument is. Unfortunately for you Simp, it's apparently over your sloped head.

The Founding Fathers are light years smarter than you. The didn't want one heavily populated area dictating to the rest of the country. No way LA County should have more say than 42 individual states.

They also didn't want an unfit freak going to the white house. So the EC was put in place. Well, that didn't work.

 

[Curried Goats]

I know exactly what my argument is. Unfortunately for you Simp, it's apparently over your sloped head.

The Founding Fathers are light years smarter than you. The didn't want one heavily populated area dictating to the rest of the country. No way LA County should have more say than 42 individual states.

They said nothing about heavily populated areas you stupid ******* coward. Electors and representation in the House was determined by counting free persons and 3/5s of the slave population. Their concern was for slaver States you child.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I know exactly what my argument is. Unfortunately for you Simp, it's apparently over your sloped head.

The Founding Fathers are light years smarter than you. The didn't want one heavily populated area dictating to the rest of the country. No way LA County should have more say than 42 individual states.

It was more specific than that. It wasn’t only heavy population areas dictating to the rest of the country but it was also states having various needs based on geography and resources. Could you imagine black ghetto trash and gray-haired childless cat ladies dictating life and policy to Midwest farmers?

 

[para bellum]

I see your point. But that doesn't make it go away. And often that's due to changes on the population, not a bad redistricting. We have presidential elections every 4 years, but censuses only every ten years. Many of the districts vary 8-10% either way.

If a State can't get it's districts within 10% of each other, that's the State's problem.

The Decennial Census has always been the way Representatives and EV's have been allocated, ever since the founding. It has never been otherwise.

It has always been up the the States how to allocate those electors- there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a "winner-take-all" system.

The difference between you and me is that I want to increase voter engagement, you only care about power.

The Framers were well aware of people like you- read Federalist 10.

 

[para bellum]

Their concern was for slaver States you child.

The 3/5 compromise was to limit the power of Slave States, not help them.

The Senate was setup with equal numbers so that the smaller States would have an equal say as larger States. The House was the voice of the people, the Senate was the voice of the States.

The allocation of electors favored the larger States, but not to the point where the smaller States could just be ignored. They would still have a voice in the Senate, and they would have at least 3 electors in the EC.

 

[Nostra]

They also didn't want an unfit freak going to the white house. So the EC was put in place. Well, that didn't work.

No shit. We got Tater and Knee Pads.

 

[Curried Goats]

The 3/5 compromise was to limit the power of Slave States, not help them.

The Senate was setup with equal numbers so that the smaller States would have an equal say as larger States. The House was the representative of the people, the Senate was the representative of the States.

The allocation of electors favored the larger States, but not to the point where the smaller States could just be ignored. They would still have a voice in the Senate, and they would have at least 3 electors in the EC.

Again, nothing in the Constitution talks about smaller States. That's a euphemism for you emotionally crippled children. The 3/5 compromise was about how much political power to give slavers. Do we count all of their slaves or only 3/5s of them. The limit was on how much extra political power their slaves would give them. Cowards.

 

[Nostra]

They said nothing about heavily populated areas you stupid ******* coward. Electors and representation in the House was determined by counting free persons and 3/5s of the slave population. Their concern was for slaver States you child.

Your ignorance, and racism, is astounding.

 

[para bellum]

Again, nothing in the Constitution talks about smaller States. That's a euphemism for you emotionally crippled children. The 3/5 compromise was about how much political power to give slavers. Do we count all of their slaves or only 3/5s of them. The limit was on how much extra political power their slaves would give them. Cowards.

Read Federalist 10. Madison talks about unchecked power of factions to impose their will on the minority. The Framers did not trust direct democracy for that reason.

The Constitution was very carefully crafted to protect the rights of the minority. The Senate was configured that way for that reason. The 17th Amendment removed a very important safeguard in the Constitution by making the Senate a popularity contest.

Without the 3/5 compromise, the slave States would not have ratified the Constitution at all. The compromise was reached so that the Union could be formed.

 

[boevans]

M14Shooter calls others names and tells them not to call names.

They oppose the Pledge of Allegiance?

They oppose the negatives of American civilization at the time, and there were so many.

When we live by the Constitution, we are a great people. When we don't, we sink to the status of MAGA, the Klan, segregation, etc.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Pledge is one of those negatives?

We were a much better people in the 50s. That's why they were the greatest generation.

 

[boevans]

M14Shooter calls others names and tells them not to call names.



They oppose the negatives of American civilization at the time, and there were so many.

When we live by the Constitution, we are a great people. When we don't, we sink to the status of MAGA, the Klan, segregation, etc.

And the latter is where Nostra and his ilk live today.

 

[para bellum]

Again, nothing in the Constitution talks about smaller States. That's a euphemism for you emotionally crippled children.

This is not true at all. The Framers were well aware that the smaller States like Connecticut or Rhode Island would be run over roughshod by Virginia or New York without some protection. That is why every State got 2 Senators, no matter the population.

The larger States would dominate the House, but it took both houses of Congress to pass legislation, and the smaller States would still have a voice in the Senate.

***smaller, in this context refers to population size, not land mass.

 

[Nostra]

And the latter is where Nostra and his ilk live today.

 

[struth]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/tim-walz-calls-for-the-electoral-college-to-be-abolished-we-need-a-national-popular-vote

By Zach Jewell Oct 9, 2024 DailyWire.com

Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz said on Tuesday that the “Electoral College needs to go,” forcing the Kamala Harris campaign to release a statement saying it does not support abolishing the Constitutional mechanism for presidential elections.

At two campaign fundraisers on the West Coast, Walz called for abolishing the Electoral College, arguing that it forces candidates to focus too much attention on a handful of battleground states, The New York Times reported.


“I think all of us know, the Electoral College needs to go. We need a national popular vote,” Walz told donors at California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s home in Sacramento. “So we need to win Beaver County, Pennsylvania. We need to be able to go into York, Pennsylvania, and win. We need to be in western Wisconsin and win. We need to be in Reno, Nevada, and win.”

At an event earlier on Tuesday, Walz told supporters that he is “a national popular vote guy, but that’s not the world we live in.”

Following the Minnesota governor’s call for the Electoral College to be abolished, the Harris campaign said in a statement, “Governor Walz believes that every vote matters in the Electoral College and he is honored to be traveling the country and battleground states working to earn support for the Harris-Walz ticket.”

Comment:
The Democrats claim that they are saving our "democracy".
But at the same time, they are attacking the foundations of our country.
The Electoral College strengthens our pluralistic election system.

Old knucklehead tampon timmy, letting out the demafacist secret plans to destroy our democratic norms, out again.

Between this and xiden admitting it was their plan to lock up their polltical rival all a long…it’s been a eye opening week

 

[struth]

How about just one vote per person? Why are you clowns obsessed with anthropomorphalizing land mass as if it cares who the President is?

In my state every citizen has one vote. Not sure where you live, but i find it odd it that wasn’t the case

 

[struth]

Wow, so you think that your fellow Americans are like starving cannibals?

So at least you are honest enough to admit you oppose democracy.

Speaking of starving cannibals, did they ever find those people that ate Joey Xiden’s uncle?

 

[Curried Goats]

Your ignorance, and racism, is astounding.

Your lack of a counter argument and reliance on name calling is obvious.

 

[Curried Goats]

Read Federalist 10. Madison talks about unchecked power of factions to impose their will on the minority. The Framers did not trust direct democracy for that reason.

Like slavers imposing their will on slaves? I read the words of slavers though the context of them being slavers rather than imagining them the words of a decent human being who's intent was to look after the well being of all.

The Constitution was very carefully crafted to protect the rights of the minority.

A minority of land owning whites, I know. They didnt trust pleebs with the ability to determine and vote on their own political futures.

The Senate was configured that way for that reason. The 17th Amendment removed a very important safeguard in the Constitution by making the Senate a popularity contest.

Without the 3/5 compromise, the slave States would not have ratified the Constitution at all. The compromise was reached so that the Union could be formed.

Oh no, some whites wouldn't have had a slave state. So sad.