Why Left Wingers HATE the Electoral College !!!

[bripat9643]

Yes they do, dingbat.

Jillian is a moonbat.

Well, maybe a dingbat too...

{“The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 28.2 percent of Hispanic voters in the 2008 election were immigrants,” according to Steven Camarota of Center for Immigration Studies

In the midst of his whirlwind nationwide campaign to salvage Democrat control of both houses of the U.S. Congress, President Barack Obama appeared at a political event for Latinos — including, legal and illegal aliens — and said:}

Voter Fraud: Illegal Alien Voters Ignored by Justice Department

Jillian is in fact stupid, but in this she is just being a partisan drone.

From your article:

For example, the methods used in seven selected states to verify voter eligibility and ensure accuracy of voter registration lists were varied and include relying on registrant self attestation, return mailings, and checking against lists of felony convictions or deceased individuals. Some states, for instance, failed to do any more than ask on their application forms if the registrant was a US citizen. The applicant will merely check off the “Yes” box, but there is no action to verify the authenticity of that answer.

“The voter registration officials simply take the word of the registrant with no follow-up,” said conservative political strategist Michael Baker.

“Some states that require some backup documentation merely ask for a utility bill or a driver’s license — neither of which prove citizenship. In other words, legal or illegal aliens can easily register to vote in local and national elections,” warns Baker.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why the Electoral College?

by P. Andrew Sandlin

In this atmosphere, the Founders were concerned that a popular regional candidate in a populous area may be able to garner enough votes to win the election, particularly if several other candidates divided the balance of the vote. This regionally popular first candidate would not likely have the interests of the entire number of states – the nation itself – at heart. If a candidate needed to win only the popular vote, it would possible for him to be elected President without winning a majority of anything. He would not have been elected on the basis of any sort of consensus of the states, but simply on his popularity in a particular state or in two or three heavily populated areas.

Article 2 of the Constitution and its 12th Amendment stipulate that the President is chosen by electors, who are themselves chosen by the state, "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct … equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This arrangement obliges candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply were required to win the popular national election.

The electoral college is a bulwark of states’ rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.

To eliminate the electoral college would be essentially to eliminate the role of states in presidential elections. It would comprehensively nationalize the selection and insinuate that states as such have no interest in national presidential politics. For all practical purposes, it would remove the borders between states and transform the United States of America into the united people of America.

.

So the answer is to give voters in small states more voting power than voters in big states? I would argue the real reason is southern states were worried about slavery and this is the only way they would vote for the Constitution, if it were electoral and the slaves counted but could not vote.

How on Earth can you make that leap?
How is it that Montana with it's 3 electoral votes for example carries the same weight as New York with it's 29 EV's?....

 

[thereisnospoon]

I love how Fools who don't like facts insist everyone who points them out is a lib.

Comrade Joe, why do you assume people so stupid that they won't recognize you for what you are?

Hispanics went for Obama by 69-31 last time. They went for Kerry 55-45 before that, after Bush bent over backwards to pander to them. It's a consitnuency the GOP is doing a very good job of alienating.

Facts aren't liberal or conservative. They are facts.

Illegals vote democrat, which is why you want more illegals.

illegals don't vote, idiota

Without voter ID laws there is no guarantee of that.

 

[JoeB131]

Blah, blah, blah. Jeb Cheated. Deal with it. if there was a 100% recanvas of all the votes, if Jeb hadn't purged the voting roles, Gore would have won Florida. The fact a court stacked with Republicans found in Bush's favor just means the court was stacked.

Now, nothing against Bush, I thought he was a much better president than most people give him credit for. I think he's a better president than Obama. But he was the result of a flawed process.

.

There was no cheating, Joe. Gore did not want a state wide recount, he just wanted heavily domocrat precincts recounted. When the state wide recounts were done months after the election, it was found that Bush still won using different scenarios. The only scenario that Gore won was if all the hanging chads went to Gore....and that included the overvotes where more than one chad went to more than one selection for the pres. Those were never counted in the past and shouldn't be, that would BE cheating.

I don't deny Gore was trying to game the system by ONLY asking for recounts in counties favorable to him.

But the fact was, both sides were trying to game the system. Gore for trying to disallow military votes, only recount in counties favorable to him, Bush by challenging every recount that came up. What would have resolved the problem is what the Florida Supreme Court tried to do- a complete recount of all ballot statewide. the SCOTUS shut that down, probalby on the very pragmatic grounds that when you are talking about a count that close, you'd never get a definitive number.

In short, the system was flawed. Now, not that I'm complaining. I shudder to think of Gore being the guy responding to 9/11 ("Let's put out an arrest warrent!") But it was a flawed system.

One person, one vote. Guy who gets the most votes wins.

 

[daveman]

I love the term progressives..

I love the antonym more

It's called being a luddite...

Hardly. Progressives want the US to "progress" to the condition of the USSR circa 1958.

Do you see that as progress? Because it's not.

In that case you are using the wrong word. They would be regressives, not progressives. More than willing to post a definition of what 'progress' means. Doesn't fit your definition...

Your problem is you pay attention to what progressives say, not what they do.

And what they do is intended to establish Soviet Amerika. They have a tendency to call things by the opposite name, because otherwise people wouldn't support them.

You fell for it. Because you're stupid.

 

[daveman]

You're one of these 'brilliant' people who think that the original meaning of the world neocon still stands, when it clearly doesn't. I'll say two words to you - Pearle, Wolfowitz - with regard to the meaning of neocon. And if you need me to explain it to you, you're even dumber than I thought - and believe me, you are thick as two short planks...

No need to explain. They're Jews. That's what "neocon" means to leftists these days.

 

[daveman]

I have no idea. Who? I neither stated nor implied anything of the kind.
Look, if you want to debate the issue, please pay attention.

Then there was no point to your post...

This is what you wrote...
"As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY"
Here is my response..."It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote."
My post a direct response to your post.
Selective amnesia is not going to help your cause.
If what you state is true, your original post was every bit if not more pointless.
Your line of comment here has all the usefulness of smashing your head against a wall because you are unhappy with the way things are.
If you don't like the EC, instead of bitching about it here, go talk to your local and State reps and get them to write legislation that will outlaw the EC.

Gump neither lives in America nor is an American citizen.

His views on our Constitution and our election process are absolutely worthless.

 

[daveman]

Stop being hypocrites on the illegal alien issue.

Republicans like to bash the illegal, but the reality is, they want illegal labor.

Nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman belongs to a small minority on the far, far beyond-the-moon right, judge his cred by that.

 

[Peach]

Good photo of the serial adulterer. The Newt should be cautious; Rick Sanctimonious might punch him out.

 

[Cowman]

You're one of these 'brilliant' people who think that the original meaning of the world neocon still stands, when it clearly doesn't. I'll say two words to you - Pearle, Wolfowitz - with regard to the meaning of neocon. And if you need me to explain it to you, you're even dumber than I thought - and believe me, you are thick as two short planks...

No need to explain. They're Jews. That's what "neocon" means to leftists these days.

What the shit psychobabble are you prattling on about? They're Jews? What?

 

[daveman]

daveman belongs to a small minority on the far, far beyond-the-moon right, judge his cred by that.

Oh, look -- Fake coming to the defense of a leftist. Gasp.

 

[bripat9643]

daveman belongs to a small minority on the far, far beyond-the-moon right, judge his cred by that.

In other words, he posts facts and common sense.

 

[daveman]

You're one of these 'brilliant' people who think that the original meaning of the world neocon still stands, when it clearly doesn't. I'll say two words to you - Pearle, Wolfowitz - with regard to the meaning of neocon. And if you need me to explain it to you, you're even dumber than I thought - and believe me, you are thick as two short planks...

No need to explain. They're Jews. That's what "neocon" means to leftists these days.

What the shit psychobabble are you prattling on about? They're Jews? What?

'Neocon': Slang for 'Jew'? - Joel Mowbray - Townhall Conservative

How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War, by Michael Lind

 

[The T]

Then there was no point to your post...

This is what you wrote...
"As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY"
Here is my response..."It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote."
My post a direct response to your post.
Selective amnesia is not going to help your cause.
If what you state is true, your original post was every bit if not more pointless.
Your line of comment here has all the usefulness of smashing your head against a wall because you are unhappy with the way things are.
If you don't like the EC, instead of bitching about it here, go talk to your local and State reps and get them to write legislation that will outlaw the EC.

Gump neither lives in America nor is an American citizen.

His views on our Constitution and our election process are absolutely worthless.

Right. Take anything it offers with a grain of salt...

 

[daveman]

This is what you wrote...
"As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY"
Here is my response..."It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote."
My post a direct response to your post.
Selective amnesia is not going to help your cause.
If what you state is true, your original post was every bit if not more pointless.
Your line of comment here has all the usefulness of smashing your head against a wall because you are unhappy with the way things are.
If you don't like the EC, instead of bitching about it here, go talk to your local and State reps and get them to write legislation that will outlaw the EC.

Gump neither lives in America nor is an American citizen.

His views on our Constitution and our election process are absolutely worthless.

Right. Take anything it offers with a grain of salt...

 

[The T]

Gump neither lives in America nor is an American citizen.

His views on our Constitution and our election process are absolutely worthless.

Right. Take anything it offers with a grain of salt...

 

[The T]

Along with wishing the 17th amendment was repealed, Conservatives LOVE the Electoral College.

It's not just conservatives. The 17th Amendment should be repealed. It's passage essentially nullified the reason for the Senate existing in the first place.

Seems they don't want democracy ANYWHERE near the United States of America.

You're right. I don't want democracy because democracy is a poor form of government. That's why we were set up to be a Republic.

Indeed. Democracy in pure form is Mob Rule.

 

[The T]

Why the Electoral College?

by P. Andrew Sandlin

In this atmosphere, the Founders were concerned that a popular regional candidate in a populous area may be able to garner enough votes to win the election, particularly if several other candidates divided the balance of the vote. This regionally popular first candidate would not likely have the interests of the entire number of states – the nation itself – at heart. If a candidate needed to win only the popular vote, it would possible for him to be elected President without winning a majority of anything. He would not have been elected on the basis of any sort of consensus of the states, but simply on his popularity in a particular state or in two or three heavily populated areas.

Article 2 of the Constitution and its 12th Amendment stipulate that the President is chosen by electors, who are themselves chosen by the state, "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct … equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This arrangement obliges candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply were required to win the popular national election.

The electoral college is a bulwark of states’ rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.

To eliminate the electoral college would be essentially to eliminate the role of states in presidential elections. It would comprehensively nationalize the selection and insinuate that states as such have no interest in national presidential politics. For all practical purposes, it would remove the borders between states and transform the United States of America into the united people of America.

.

Indeed. It was built in to provide balance so that less populace States would have equal say.

 

[Defiant1]

A good read for the electoral college, afterall, it is the United States.
The Electoral College - Origin and History

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Seems that our FF's WERE much smarter than a 5th grader.


Thank you, Asaratis

And you think Nevada, or South Dakota or Alaska have as much input/say as Texas, California, NY or Florida. Can you name one election in the past 30 years that has been decided by Alaska?

In 2000 the election was decided by Tennessee. Had Gore won his home state, Florida would not have mattered.