Why Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Not Electoral College, Pick Presidents

[Mr. Shaman]

the electoral college has had an effect contrary to the pop vote 4 times in our history.....4.....and 1 since 1888, get a grip people, you still can't be this butt hurt by losing out on a Gore Presidency, I mean seriously.....

Yeah....economic-consistency would have been a real-killer, huh??

Stupid fuckin' Teabaggers​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the electoral college has had an effect contrary to the pop vote 4 times in our history.....4.....and 1 since 1888, get a grip people, you still can't be this butt hurt by losing out on a Gore Presidency, I mean seriously.....

Yeah....economic-consistency would have been a real-killer, huh??

Stupid fuckin' Teabaggers​

You should really HATE Obama, he met Bush's deficit spending in HALF the time and plans to double it if reelected.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It would be the best incremental step in breaking the stranglehold the two party system has on our democracy. What if all presidents ran as independents? That suggestion alone is enough to make partisans piss their pants. It's more democracy, more power to an individual vote, I am 100% for it.

yep... the Founding Fathers didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground...

mob rule is definitely where it's at...

Problem for our Marxist friends is that what the founders laid out doesn't leave much room for communism.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

the electoral college has had an effect contrary to the pop vote 4 times in our history.....4.....and 1 since 1888, get a grip people, you still can't be this butt hurt by losing out on a Gore Presidency, I mean seriously.....

I live an hour south of Portland, Oregon where they simply pretend Gore won and the Bush years never happened. I wish they would realize that wearing deodorant and women shaving their armpits doesn't make one less of a bohemian rebel though.

You Yuppies are tooooooooooooooo obvious.

 

[bayoubill]

Apparently, the GOP still considers the population to be too uneducated and stupid to choose a President.... which WAS THE REASON for the Electoral College to begin with. Most people couldn't even read back then.

I continue to find it amusing that libs say stuff like this... when I recall that my ex father-in-law, the biggest in-your-face flamin' lib I ever met in my life, would often say, in his inimitable bombastic voice, "The masses are asses and not fit to govern themselves!"...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I would say so, but I speak for myself. Not my party, nor my race, nor my religion, nor anything...just me. However, remember I am a teacher so before I agree to that I would have to insist that a system of education was created where students are not brainwashed by a liberal agenda. That easy enough...focus on teaching kids HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. I would also raise the voting age to 35

How about the ones that are brainwashed on a CON-servative agenda? Oh... I forgot, the right doesn't brainwash or lie, or behave politically, or do anything wrong.

If you're an educator, you're a bad one if you have that narrow of a world view.

Yeeeeeahhhhhh...I run into SO many conservative colleagues as I teach at the university. In the entire faculty I am not called one of "the four horsemen of the GOP" for nothing. There's literally four of us that aren't flaming liberals.

Yeah......you'd already suggested......you're bohemian rebels; incognito.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I would say so, but I speak for myself. Not my party, nor my race, nor my religion, nor anything...just me. However, remember I am a teacher so before I agree to that I would have to insist that a system of education was created where students are not brainwashed by a liberal agenda. That easy enough...focus on teaching kids HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. I would also raise the voting age to 35

HOW to think like a CON$ervative, you mean, which is to not think at all.

"Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid."
- Kin Hubbard

No I mean how to reach their own conclusions. Let me quote a former dean at a university I worked "we don't want (the students) the think for themselves. We want them to do what we tell them to do and think what we tell them to think." And yes he was a flaming liberal who had a doll of Bush full of pins and hanging from a noose on his desk lamp. There's your "lets all just get along, peaceful, non-vitriolic, idealistic liberal mind" pal.

Whew......you certainly are quite the bullshitter.....but, I guess you've gotta do-what-you-gotta-do to elevate your "stock" (in your eyes)....even at the expense o' being a pompous-prick.​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are as bad in wording your question as the phony Phantom.

Do you mean "what?"
The speed of light is the universal constant.

Thank you for the absolute proof you are not a physicist.

And thank you for absolute proof you never studied physics.

He was obviously asking about the cosmological constant, something anyone who studies physics at all would know. As for the speed of light being the universal constant, you should know better. There is no constant that is considered the universal constants, and all constants are universal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No dude. I mean Einstein's Fudge Factor.

Oh and by the way, you just told Phantom that the speed of light is not a constant, so how can it be the "universal constant"?

I meant WHY you dumbass. Why is it there? The fudge factor. Stop being so damned arrogant.

Here, maybe this will help:
Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did no such thing. That was someone else. Recent experiments at CERN have clocked neutrinos at a speed greater than the speed of light. It has not been replicated by others yet and there is no theoretical foundation for it as yet, so it is still open to question.

And if you meant the "cosmological constant" you shouldn't have said "universal constant."

First, I went back and read through the thread again. It was Quantum that made the claim that light speed was variable. Sorry about that.
CERN was not directly involved with the experiment you cite. They debunked it.
You are still arrogant though.

So to answer the question. It's there to make things balance when nobody has a real answer. Kind of like the God theory. God did it. It's just as good as most of current cosmology today.

I did not say variable, I said relative. It is.

 

[edthecynic]

Ok, here's a question for all of you Physics Geeks. Why is the "universal constant" in the special theory of relativity?

Thank you for the absolute proof you are not a physicist.

And thank you for absolute proof you never studied physics.

He was obviously asking about the cosmological constant, something anyone who studies physics at all would know. As for the speed of light being the universal constant, you should know better. There is no constant that is considered the universal constants, and all constants are universal.

There is no cosmological constant in the special theory of relativity, something anyone who studied physics would know. Einstein proposed it for his general theory of relativity.
He didn't ask about ALL universal constants, he asked about the universal constant specifically in the special theory of relativity!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, here's a question for all of you Physics Geeks. Why is the "universal constant" in the special theory of relativity?

And thank you for absolute proof you never studied physics.

He was obviously asking about the cosmological constant, something anyone who studies physics at all would know. As for the speed of light being the universal constant, you should know better. There is no constant that is considered the universal constants, and all constants are universal.

There is no cosmological constant in the special theory of relativity, something anyone who studied physics would know. Einstein proposed it for his general theory of relativity.
He didn't ask about ALL universal constants, he asked about the universal constant specifically in the special theory of relativity!!!

He did not know what he was talking about, did he? Pointing out all the mistakes he made to prove you were right, when I actually understood what he was talking about, makes you look really sharp.

 

[edthecynic]

Ok, here's a question for all of you Physics Geeks. Why is the "universal constant" in the special theory of relativity?

He was obviously asking about the cosmological constant, something anyone who studies physics at all would know. As for the speed of light being the universal constant, you should know better. There is no constant that is considered the universal constants, and all constants are universal.

There is no cosmological constant in the special theory of relativity, something anyone who studied physics would know. Einstein proposed it for his general theory of relativity.
He didn't ask about ALL universal constants, he asked about the universal constant specifically in the special theory of relativity!!!

He did not know what he was talking about, did he? Pointing out all the mistakes he made to prove you were right, when I actually understood what he was talking about, makes you look really sharp.

Sure you did.
I guess that makes you as ignorant as him!

 

[Lakhota]

GALLUP: Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Nearly 11 years after the 2000 presidential election brought the idiosyncrasies of the United States' Electoral College into full view, 62% of Americans say they would amend the U.S. Constitution to replace that system for electing presidents with a popular vote system. Barely a third, 35%, say they would keep the Electoral College.

Gallup's initial measure of support for the Electoral College with this wording was conducted in the first few days after the 2000 presidential election in which the winner remained undeclared pending a recount in Florida. At that time, it was already clear that Democratic candidate Al Gore had won the national popular vote over Republican George W. Bush, but that the winner of the election would be the one who received Florida's 25 Electoral College votes.

During this period, Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to favor replacing the Electoral College system with a popular vote system. In a Gallup poll conducted Dec. 15-17 -- shortly after the Dec. 12 Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recount, thereby deciding the election in Bush's favor -- 75% of Democrats said they would amend the Constitution so that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins. By contrast, 56% of Republicans favored keeping the Electoral College, while 41% favored replacing it with a popular vote system.
Use the link to read the entire article

Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals dislike the Constitution and have sufficiently dumbed down sufficient numbers of people to the point where they don't know what the Constitution says or means.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You want to do away with the EC? You have any idea what the results would be?

Just think Florida 2000 on a national scale. Every precinct in every state counting and recounting votes. Votes being manufactured all over the place. Fraud. Corruption. Complete manipulation of the elections. Total Chaos.

Follow that with fighting in the streets and civil war.

The dead in Cook County electing the President.
It worked in 1960.

 

[Flopper]

Apparently, the GOP still considers the population to be too uneducated and stupid to choose a President.... which WAS THE REASON for the Electoral College to begin with. Most people couldn't even read back then.

I consider the average American to be too uneducated and stupid to understand politics and therefore be too ignorant to cast an educated vote.....

Bingo!!!!

YOU WIN!!!!​

Denying the uneducated the right to vote may at first sound good, but the more you consider its consequences, the worse it becomes. Knowledge is of course, superior to ignorance; an informed choice is better than an ignorant one. But just as clearly, there are other aspects to citizenship than pure knowledge. Values and viewpoints from all different walks of life should be heard.

 

[Lakhota]

Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.

 

[bripat9643]

Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.

What's racist about it?

 

[Flopper]

The national popular vote has half the states it needs.

So, we're halfway there.

What might be a good compromise is to award electors based on which party wins each district. So the popular would decide how an elector for a district votes. The only way a party could win a whole state would be to win every district. Although not a popular vote, it's closer to it.

 

[Muhammed]

It would be the best incremental step in breaking the stranglehold the two party system has on our democracy. What if all presidents ran as independents? That suggestion alone is enough to make partisans piss their pants. It's more democracy, more power to an individual vote, I am 100% for it.

Wrong! It does not give the individual's vote more power. On the contrary, under the direct national popular vote system, the individual's vote would have less power.

That's the fact of the matter whether you are intelligent enough to comprehend the logic or not.