What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

[Trump The Mad King]

So dems all agree that their voter base is SO ******* STUPID a few ads will get them to vote for Trump?

If advertising doesn't work - why do businesses and politicians spend billions of dollars on it? It is absurd to think that all the conspiracy theories, fake news, lies, Comey, and Russians didn't affect the outcome of the presidential election.

Let us know when it's against the law to buy ads on Facebook.

Okay, after Mueller completes his investigation.

You’ll still find something to ***** about.

You people aren’t happy unless you’re whining and bitching about something.

Says the Repug losers who still constantly whine about Hillary and Obama.

 

[tycho1572]

Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.

He did win the popular vote with legal voters.

Great retort, Repug goober. And of course you have evidence to show that over 3 million people illegally voted? Of course not, troll.

I’m going to assume you didn’t see this.....

No comment on the vid, Trump The Mad King? lol

No, goober. I didn't even watch it. I'm not interested in your mentally ill Repug diatribes. So Obama lies about everything else according to you Repugs, but in this video he is suddenly revealing something truthful about illegal voters??? Got it, goober. How utterly logical.

Voter fraud has been repeatedly studied over and over and they never find shit. Everyone with a brain knows this, which excludes dishonest Repugs such as yourself.

You didn’t watch a 30sec vid? BS!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He did win the popular vote with legal voters.

Great retort, Repug goober. And of course you have evidence to show that over 3 million people illegally voted? Of course not, troll.

I’m going to assume you didn’t see this.....

No comment on the vid, Trump The Mad King? lol

No, goober. I didn't even watch it. I'm not interested in your mentally ill Repug diatribes. So Obama lies about everything else according to you Repugs, but in this video he is suddenly revealing something truthful about illegal voters??? Got it, goober. How utterly logical.

Voter fraud has been repeatedly studied over and over and they never find shit. Everyone with a brain knows this, which excludes dishonest Repugs such as yourself.

You didn’t watch a 30sec vid? BS!!

I don't know what's scarier,
Obama telling an illegal alien to vote or Obama not knowing an illegal alien can't legally vote.

 

[tycho1572]

Great retort, Repug goober. And of course you have evidence to show that over 3 million people illegally voted? Of course not, troll.

I’m going to assume you didn’t see this.....

No comment on the vid, Trump The Mad King? lol

No, goober. I didn't even watch it. I'm not interested in your mentally ill Repug diatribes. So Obama lies about everything else according to you Repugs, but in this video he is suddenly revealing something truthful about illegal voters??? Got it, goober. How utterly logical.

Voter fraud has been repeatedly studied over and over and they never find shit. Everyone with a brain knows this, which excludes dishonest Repugs such as yourself.

You didn’t watch a 30sec vid? BS!!

I don't know what's scarier,
Obama telling an illegal alien to vote or Obama not knowing an illegal alien can't legally vote.

It’s one of the many reasons why Hillary lost.

 

[Fang]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

The Birther Movement is alive and well. Just looks a little different today. lol

Obama told his publisher that he was "Born in Kenya"

That is a fact. Obama did say that.

 

[tycho1572]

I’m thinking about walking out back and doing a little fishing, Trump The Mad King. Wish me luck.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

He did win the popular vote with legal voters.

Great retort, Repug goober. And of course you have evidence to show that over 3 million people illegally voted? Of course not, troll.

I’m going to assume you didn’t see this.....

No comment on the vid, Trump The Mad King? lol

No, goober. I didn't even watch it. I'm not interested in your mentally ill Repug diatribes. So Obama lies about everything else according to you Repugs, but in this video he is suddenly revealing something truthful about illegal voters??? Got it, goober. How utterly logical.

Voter fraud has been repeatedly studied over and over and they never find shit. Everyone with a brain knows this, which excludes dishonest Repugs such as yourself.

You didn’t watch a 30sec vid? BS!!

Nope, sure didn't. What for? I already know you're full of shit.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

Yes, and California should have about 200 representatives in the House. Again, this is not a Constitutional issue.

In 1911 they passed a law to limit the House to 435 members. Sorry.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed.

Well, you can either change the law that limits Reps, or change the Constitution that apportions EC votes.

Or you can keep whining how unfair it is that your drunken candidate was defeated.

A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.

68/53 = 1.28

That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.

You're not calculating this correctly. Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress. 55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Each voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 more voting power as each voter in California.

This article also discusses the disparity:

Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College. | HuffPost

Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress.

I agree, California only has 53 times the congressmen as Wyoming, they "should" have 68 congressmen.

68 + 2 = 70 EC votes.

55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Nope. 68 / 53 is only 1.28

You're forgetting that every state gets 2 senate seats, without regard to population.
You can't whine that California should have 136 seats in the Senate.
Well, you can, but we'll just point and laugh at your idiocy.

I just don't agree with this. If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3, which is 204 electoral college votes. What's fair is fair.

If that requires a change to the Constitution, then so be it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 1911 they passed a law to limit the House to 435 members. Sorry.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed.

Well, you can either change the law that limits Reps, or change the Constitution that apportions EC votes.

Or you can keep whining how unfair it is that your drunken candidate was defeated.

A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.

68/53 = 1.28

That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.

You're not calculating this correctly. Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress. 55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Each voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 more voting power as each voter in California.

This article also discusses the disparity:

Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College. | HuffPost

Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress.

I agree, California only has 53 times the congressmen as Wyoming, they "should" have 68 congressmen.

68 + 2 = 70 EC votes.

55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Nope. 68 / 53 is only 1.28

You're forgetting that every state gets 2 senate seats, without regard to population.
You can't whine that California should have 136 seats in the Senate.
Well, you can, but we'll just point and laugh at your idiocy.

I just don't agree with this. If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3, which is 204 electoral college votes. What's fair is fair.

If that requires a change to the Constitution, then so be it.

If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3,

You're wrong. Wyoming has 1 seat based on their population, not 3.
You understand that each state has 2 senate seats, no matter how large or small their population. Right?

 

[tycho1572]

In 1911 they passed a law to limit the House to 435 members. Sorry.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed.

Well, you can either change the law that limits Reps, or change the Constitution that apportions EC votes.

Or you can keep whining how unfair it is that your drunken candidate was defeated.

A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.

68/53 = 1.28

That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.

You're not calculating this correctly. Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress. 55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Each voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 more voting power as each voter in California.

This article also discusses the disparity:

Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College. | HuffPost

Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress.

I agree, California only has 53 times the congressmen as Wyoming, they "should" have 68 congressmen.

68 + 2 = 70 EC votes.

55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Nope. 68 / 53 is only 1.28

You're forgetting that every state gets 2 senate seats, without regard to population.
You can't whine that California should have 136 seats in the Senate.
Well, you can, but we'll just point and laugh at your idiocy.

I just don't agree with this. If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3, which is 204 electoral college votes. What's fair is fair.

If that requires a change to the Constitution, then so be it.

Then go for it. Stop whining and do something.

I’m going fishing. Wish me luck, dumbass.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed.

Well, you can either change the law that limits Reps, or change the Constitution that apportions EC votes.

Or you can keep whining how unfair it is that your drunken candidate was defeated.

A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.

68/53 = 1.28

That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.

You're not calculating this correctly. Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress. 55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Each voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 more voting power as each voter in California.

This article also discusses the disparity:

Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College. | HuffPost

Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress.

I agree, California only has 53 times the congressmen as Wyoming, they "should" have 68 congressmen.

68 + 2 = 70 EC votes.

55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Nope. 68 / 53 is only 1.28

You're forgetting that every state gets 2 senate seats, without regard to population.
You can't whine that California should have 136 seats in the Senate.
Well, you can, but we'll just point and laugh at your idiocy.

I just don't agree with this. If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3, which is 204 electoral college votes. What's fair is fair.

If that requires a change to the Constitution, then so be it.

If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3,

You're wrong. Wyoming has 1 seat based on their population, not 3.
You understand that each state has 2 senate seats, no matter how large or small their population. Right?

I understand what you're saying. I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate. No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way. It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed.

Well, you can either change the law that limits Reps, or change the Constitution that apportions EC votes.

Or you can keep whining how unfair it is that your drunken candidate was defeated.

A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.

68/53 = 1.28

That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.

You're not calculating this correctly. Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress. 55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Each voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 more voting power as each voter in California.

This article also discusses the disparity:

Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College. | HuffPost

Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress.

I agree, California only has 53 times the congressmen as Wyoming, they "should" have 68 congressmen.

68 + 2 = 70 EC votes.

55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Nope. 68 / 53 is only 1.28

You're forgetting that every state gets 2 senate seats, without regard to population.
You can't whine that California should have 136 seats in the Senate.
Well, you can, but we'll just point and laugh at your idiocy.

I just don't agree with this. If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3, which is 204 electoral college votes. What's fair is fair.

If that requires a change to the Constitution, then so be it.

If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3,

You're wrong. Wyoming has 1 seat based on their population, not 3.
You understand that each state has 2 senate seats, no matter how large or small their population. Right?

I understand what you're saying. I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate. No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way. It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate.

***** to the Founders, it was their idea.

No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way.

So what?

It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

Nah, too much Dem fraud.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

You're not calculating this correctly. Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress. 55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Each voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 more voting power as each voter in California.

This article also discusses the disparity:

Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College. | HuffPost

Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress.

I agree, California only has 53 times the congressmen as Wyoming, they "should" have 68 congressmen.

68 + 2 = 70 EC votes.

55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Nope. 68 / 53 is only 1.28

You're forgetting that every state gets 2 senate seats, without regard to population.
You can't whine that California should have 136 seats in the Senate.
Well, you can, but we'll just point and laugh at your idiocy.

I just don't agree with this. If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3, which is 204 electoral college votes. What's fair is fair.

If that requires a change to the Constitution, then so be it.

If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3,

You're wrong. Wyoming has 1 seat based on their population, not 3.
You understand that each state has 2 senate seats, no matter how large or small their population. Right?

I understand what you're saying. I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate. No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way. It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate.

***** to the Founders, it was their idea.

No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way.

So what?

It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

Nah, too much Dem fraud.

Show me real evidence of Democrats committing voter fraud. I don't want to hear about a total of 10 cases over the last 20 ******* years. You ain't got shit and we both know it. If it makes you feel better being an intellectually dishonest jerk, well then that's you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress.

I agree, California only has 53 times the congressmen as Wyoming, they "should" have 68 congressmen.

68 + 2 = 70 EC votes.

55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Nope. 68 / 53 is only 1.28

You're forgetting that every state gets 2 senate seats, without regard to population.
You can't whine that California should have 136 seats in the Senate.
Well, you can, but we'll just point and laugh at your idiocy.

I just don't agree with this. If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3, which is 204 electoral college votes. What's fair is fair.

If that requires a change to the Constitution, then so be it.

If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3,

You're wrong. Wyoming has 1 seat based on their population, not 3.
You understand that each state has 2 senate seats, no matter how large or small their population. Right?

I understand what you're saying. I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate. No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way. It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate.

***** to the Founders, it was their idea.

No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way.

So what?

It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

Nah, too much Dem fraud.

Show me real evidence of Democrats committing voter fraud. I don't want to hear about a total of 10 cases over the last 20 ******* years. You ain't got shit and we both know it. If it makes you feel better being an intellectually dishonest jerk, well then that's you.

I live in Chicago, don't make me laugh.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

I just don't agree with this. If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3, which is 204 electoral college votes. What's fair is fair.

If that requires a change to the Constitution, then so be it.

If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3,

You're wrong. Wyoming has 1 seat based on their population, not 3.
You understand that each state has 2 senate seats, no matter how large or small their population. Right?

I understand what you're saying. I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate. No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way. It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate.

***** to the Founders, it was their idea.

No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way.

So what?

It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

Nah, too much Dem fraud.

Show me real evidence of Democrats committing voter fraud. I don't want to hear about a total of 10 cases over the last 20 ******* years. You ain't got shit and we both know it. If it makes you feel better being an intellectually dishonest jerk, well then that's you.

I live in Chicago, don't make me laugh.

Again, show me evidence. Repug voter suppression in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina is a much bigger problem.

 

[SavannahMann]

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do

I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.

Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?

They don't. The House is apportioned by population and they can't get any new laws through without passing the House. Well, unless the SCOTUS wants to legislate them.

And majority rule is just two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner

That simply isn't true. Wyoming has much greater representation than California, as has been previously explained.

Wyoming has the bare minimum. Let’s consult the Constitution as amended. Each state gets two senators. Originally intended to balance the populist pressure these Senators were to be selected by the states, like Ambassadors. This didn’t work out too well. So we went to the popular vote within the state. Each state thus has equal representation in the Senate. Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as Oregon, or California. No more, and no less. All states are equally represented. But, what about the people?

Simple. This is the House of Representatives. Section two of article one says that there shall be one for every thirty thousand people, we will skip the 3/5ths, but may not have less than one. The result was predictable. If we had not limited the total number of Representatives then we would have had to put a roof over the entire District of Columbia to hold them all. Ten thousand representatives would be unworkable by any stretch of the imagination. Wyoming would have 12 Representatives plus of course the two senators.

You would still argue it because with the two senators Wyoming would have a disproportionate effect on the electoral college. But this is why we have it. The job is President of the United States. Not Prime Minister of the American People. The President is chosen by the Several States. Including those backwards thinking states that Hillary detests. If you focus on the hipper than thou then you will win them, and lose the less hip.

It’s not fair because we didn’t win is an argument. One suitable for Middle School. But it is an argument.

 

[Ame®icano]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

And this has relevance to the 2016 election how?

If anything was fraudulent, it was the Obama administration working illegally behind the scenes to defeat Trump

He was thinking about 2008 election.

 

[bripat9643]

If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3,

You're wrong. Wyoming has 1 seat based on their population, not 3.
You understand that each state has 2 senate seats, no matter how large or small their population. Right?

I understand what you're saying. I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate. No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way. It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate.

***** to the Founders, it was their idea.

No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way.

So what?

It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

Nah, too much Dem fraud.

Show me real evidence of Democrats committing voter fraud. I don't want to hear about a total of 10 cases over the last 20 ******* years. You ain't got shit and we both know it. If it makes you feel better being an intellectually dishonest jerk, well then that's you.

I live in Chicago, don't make me laugh.

Again, show me evidence. Repug voter suppression in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina is a much bigger problem.

It's the solution, not a problem. What you call "voter suppression" is what honest people call "insuring the integrity of the election."

 

[Trump The Mad King]

I understand what you're saying. I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate. No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way. It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

I don't agree that each state should get 2 automatic electoral college votes based on the Senate.

***** to the Founders, it was their idea.

No other democratic country with a two house system performs nationwide elections this way.

So what?

It should be based on population, total number of votes only.

Nah, too much Dem fraud.

Show me real evidence of Democrats committing voter fraud. I don't want to hear about a total of 10 cases over the last 20 ******* years. You ain't got shit and we both know it. If it makes you feel better being an intellectually dishonest jerk, well then that's you.

I live in Chicago, don't make me laugh.

Again, show me evidence. Repug voter suppression in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina is a much bigger problem.

It's the solution, not a problem. What you call "voter suppression" is what honest people call "insuring the integrity of the election."

Not when people are prevented from voting because they didn't have the "right" ID. Which is why Hillary lost Wisconsin.

 

[hadit]

So dems all agree that their voter base is SO ******* STUPID a few ads will get them to vote for Trump?

If advertising doesn't work - why do businesses and politicians spend billions of dollars on it? It is absurd to think that all the conspiracy theories, fake news, lies, Comey, and Russians didn't affect the outcome of the presidential election.

Let us know when it's against the law to buy ads on Facebook.

Okay, after Mueller completes his investigation.

Until the 1st is repealed, never.