why we need electoral college:Los Angeles county is home to more people than each of these 41 states

[jillian]

If ever there was an argument for the Electoral College... this may be it.

so why should anyone's vote be worth more than someone's vote in a more populated state?

Because it's a more populated state. Do you think a vote for a governor in CA is the same as one in WY? Stupid question.

the discussion was about the electoral college ignorant twit, or did you forget your topic.

some moron where you live shouldn't have a vote in the presidential election worth 700 of mine.

 

[BluesLegend]

If ever there was an argument for the Electoral College... this may be it.

so why should anyone's vote be worth more than someone's vote in a more populated state?

California should forfeit its voting rights for giving sanctuary to illegals.

 

[BluesLegend]

If ever there was an argument for the Electoral College... this may be it.

so why should anyone's vote be worth more than someone's vote in a more populated state?

Because it's a more populated state. Do you think a vote for a governor in CA is the same as one in WY? Stupid question.

the discussion was about the electoral college ignorant twit, or did you forget your topic.

some moron where you live shouldn't have a vote in the presidential election worth 700 of mine.

Libs are lucky we don't confine them to a gulag.

 

[Meathead]

the discussion was about the electoral college ignorant twit, or did you forget your topic.

some moron where you live shouldn't have a vote in the presidential election worth 700 of mine

You asked a stupid question and now your trying to weasel your way out of it. Besides, very few people can vote for POTUS where I live, but where you live they could because they'd be illegal aliens.

 

[jillian]

the discussion was about the electoral college ignorant twit, or did you forget your topic.

some moron where you live shouldn't have a vote in the presidential election worth 700 of mine

You asked a stupid question and now your trying to weasel your way out of it. Besides, very few people can vote where I live, where you live they could because they'd be illegal aliens.

I did not ask a "stupid" question. you posted a stupid thread ranting about why we need the electoral college...

to hold the majority of people in this country hostage to hacks like you. we get it, dimbulb.

 

[HenryBHough]

Think of the billions we'll save if we have to bother with the cost of running elections anywhere other than Los Angeles County and New York State!

 

[Lysistrata]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Democratic winning presidents have always won the popular vote along with winning the electoral college....

The Republican presidents as of late, not so much...and that's when it's the issue...when a president doesn't even come close to winning the popular vote of the people yet wins the presidency through the electoral college only...and not by its citizen's choice too or even close to its citizen's choice too....

And it makes sense for there to be discontent among citizens, when that happens....imo

Great. This is a republic, not a democracy. Not sure why you advocate for mob rule.

Do you know what the long term consequences Are?


Take the time from your disappointment from last November and consider it.

Still have no clue how a person that claims to follow Christ could possibly vote for the Clintons.

No one who claims to follow Jesus would have voted for trump. BTW: I don't know why people don't like Methodists.

 

[Meathead]

the discussion was about the electoral college ignorant twit, or did you forget your topic.

some moron where you live shouldn't have a vote in the presidential election worth 700 of mine

You asked a stupid question and now your trying to weasel your way out of it. Besides, very few people can vote where I live, where you live they could because they'd be illegal aliens.

I did not ask a "stupid" question. you posted a stupid thread ranting about why we need the electoral college...

to hold the majority of people in this country hostage to hacks like you. we get it, dimbulb.

Good Lord, I hate ditsy people.

 

[jillian]

the discussion was about the electoral college ignorant twit, or did you forget your topic.

some moron where you live shouldn't have a vote in the presidential election worth 700 of mine

You asked a stupid question and now your trying to weasel your way out of it. Besides, very few people can vote where I live, where you live they could because they'd be illegal aliens.

I did not ask a "stupid" question. you posted a stupid thread ranting about why we need the electoral college...

to hold the majority of people in this country hostage to hacks like you. we get it, dimbulb.

Good Lord, I hate ditsy people.

then you must spend a lot of time hating yourself, dimbulb. I can't help it if you forgot what you were posting about, scatterbrain.

 

[Meathead]

the discussion was about the electoral college ignorant twit, or did you forget your topic.

some moron where you live shouldn't have a vote in the presidential election worth 700 of mine

You asked a stupid question and now your trying to weasel your way out of it. Besides, very few people can vote where I live, where you live they could because they'd be illegal aliens.

I did not ask a "stupid" question. you posted a stupid thread ranting about why we need the electoral college...

to hold the majority of people in this country hostage to hacks like you. we get it, dimbulb.

Good Lord, I hate ditsy people.

then you must spend a lot of time hating yourself, dimbulb. I can't help it if you forgot what you were posting about, scatterbrain.

I cannot pretend to compete with the intellectual give and take of a I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I exchange.

Be well dingbat.

 

[TNHarley]

Isnt the EC like socialism for voting?
Figured you bedwetters would be all over that

 

[Staidhup]

Enough already, the founding fathers voiced their concerns and fears long ago, the system is just, works, and nothing has changed other than politics as usual.

 

[The Derp]

We do not have a "centralized economy"

Yes, we do.

When you can sit at your computer in Seattle, order a product from Florida, pay for it with a credit card based in Delaware, and have it shipped by a company in Texas, that's centralization.

Amazon is the future of commerce and it is centralization.

and wtf does that have to do with the EV? Centralized economies were the lot the USSR and the like and their infamous 5-year plans. Some other posters on this thread doubtless appreciate your input. It makes them look less ill-informed.

No, what you're describing is a planned economy, not a centralized one. We already have a capitalist centralized economy. What we don't have is a government that is up to the task of regulating it because for some stupid reason, you people think state borders make some kind of distinction to commerce. They don't. Commerce doesn't give a shit about state borders anymore. It's also not the 1700's anymore...commerce happening across state borders is the standard now, not the exception. Why are you so determined to apply 18th century thinking to 21st century problems? You don't treat cancer with leeches, so why would you employ 18th century solutions to 21st century problems?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Democratic winning presidents have always won the popular vote along with winning the electoral college....

The Republican presidents as of late, not so much...and that's when it's the issue...when a president doesn't even come close to winning the popular vote of the people yet wins the presidency through the electoral college only...and not by its citizen's choice too or even close to its citizen's choice too....

And it makes sense for there to be discontent among citizens, when that happens....imo

Democrats all reside in very few states. Imagine if the Senate was like the House and based on population by political parties. The Democrats would have about 40 votes. You libs should be thankful that the Senate is as close as it is, or you would become irrelevant.

the problem with the electoral college is the States changed the way they count electoral votes from the original way they were used by our founding fathers....

the Political parties in power, changed their States so that no one or near no one in any of the independent parties can garner any electoral votes, because the states decided to make laws to protect the big two parties within the State.....and made their electoral college votes for the State, as winner takes all electoral votes....

As example, Ross Perot garnered 20 MILLION votes but the way the parties set it up within the states, he got ZERO electoral votes.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE of what our founding fathers created with the electoral college and Madison's and Adam's intent.....

Also the only electoral advantage of smaller states was suppose to be the 2 extra electors each state was given for their 2 senators....just like in the Senate, small states have equal voice as the largest states because all get just 2 senators.... the advantage given to small states was only suppose to be these two electors given for their two senators.

It's the way the parties manipulated the electoral college in each state, that makes the system not work in allowing the best and the brightest have a chance, becuase of this winner take all electors crud.

Don't like it? Change your state laws or move to Nebraska or Maine.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

why we need electoral college:Los Angeles county is home to more people than each of these 41 states

One person, one vote. People vote - not acres. Or, are acres now people, too? That would make humans competing with corporations and acres.

Only in the world's most advanced democracy can one gather fewer votes and yet win.

And it is telling that some posters on this thread hold their fellow Americans in such disdain. Are they arguing there is a "real America" and a "contemptible America" existing side by side?

As for me, I'll take the places with universities, concert halls, museums and art galleries. The places with major sports franchises and restaurants and cosmopolitan outlooks. They can keep the soy bean fields, the cattle ranches and the trailer parks.

Oooohhhh--you really messed that one up with your final sentence. You can't eat without them. Be very, very grateful for them.

I wrote that as a response to folks who love to post maps of the United,States after elections. Huge swaths of the nation are depicted in red while blue shows up on the coasts and as isolated dots where there are major cities and/or college towns.

All that red, yet nobody lives there! There are more people in Brooklyn than there are in North Dakota. Yet North Dakota shows up as a mass of red in the central northern part of the map while Brooklyn shows up like the period at the end of this sentence.

So you don't realize that is the exact reason that we have an Electoral College?

 

[Meathead]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Democratic winning presidents have always won the popular vote along with winning the electoral college....

The Republican presidents as of late, not so much...and that's when it's the issue...when a president doesn't even come close to winning the popular vote of the people yet wins the presidency through the electoral college only...and not by its citizen's choice too or even close to its citizen's choice too....

And it makes sense for there to be discontent among citizens, when that happens....imo

Democrats all reside in very few states. Imagine if the Senate was like the House and based on population by political parties. The Democrats would have about 40 votes. You libs should be thankful that the Senate is as close as it is, or you would become irrelevant.

the problem with the electoral college is the States changed the way they count electoral votes from the original way they were used by our founding fathers....

the Political parties in power, changed their States so that no one or near no one in any of the independent parties can garner any electoral votes, because the states decided to make laws to protect the big two parties within the State.....and made their electoral college votes for the State, as winner takes all electoral votes....

As example, Ross Perot garnered 20 MILLION votes but the way the parties set it up within the states, he got ZERO electoral votes.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE of what our founding fathers created with the electoral college and Madison's and Adam's intent.....

Also the only electoral advantage of smaller states was suppose to be the 2 extra electors each state was given for their 2 senators....just like in the Senate, small states have equal voice as the largest states because all get just 2 senators.... the advantage given to small states was only suppose to be these two electors given for their two senators.

It's the way the parties manipulated the electoral college in each state, that makes the system not work in allowing the best and the brightest have a chance, becuase of this winner take all electors crud.

Don't like it? Change your state laws or move to Nebraska or Maine.

State law has nothing to do with it but states' rights have everything to do with it. Most of the arguments against the EC are founded on complete ignorance of American history and specifically why states agreed to join the union.

 

[Care4all]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Democratic winning presidents have always won the popular vote along with winning the electoral college....

The Republican presidents as of late, not so much...and that's when it's the issue...when a president doesn't even come close to winning the popular vote of the people yet wins the presidency through the electoral college only...and not by its citizen's choice too or even close to its citizen's choice too....

And it makes sense for there to be discontent among citizens, when that happens....imo

Great. This is a republic, not a democracy. Not sure why you advocate for mob rule.

Do you know what the long term consequences Are?


Take the time from your disappointment from last November and consider it.

Still have no clue how a person that claims to follow Christ could possibly vote for the Clintons.

We are a democratic Republic, which does not mean we allow the minority rule over the majority, but that we give the minority a shot, to be heard.

Only a PURE Democracy allows the majority to always win, and the people vote on every issue to decide....

THERE ARE NO pure democracies anywhere in the whole world....

But there are lots of different kinds of Democracies among all the Nation's in the world that are not PURE Democracies and the USA is one of them.

Also all 50 state govts are Democracies

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Do you not remember Bush's victory? A Republican has not won the Presidency with the popular vote for quite some time.

2004 was sooooooooooo long ago! With Ohbummer in office in the middle, it was not that long since we only have elections every 4

Idiot!

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Democratic winning presidents have always won the popular vote along with winning the electoral college....

The Republican presidents as of late, not so much...and that's when it's the issue...when a president doesn't even come close to winning the popular vote of the people yet wins the presidency through the electoral college only...and not by its citizen's choice too or even close to its citizen's choice too....

And it makes sense for there to be discontent among citizens, when that happens....imo

Democrats all reside in very few states. Imagine if the Senate was like the House and based on population by political parties. The Democrats would have about 40 votes. You libs should be thankful that the Senate is as close as it is, or you would become irrelevant.

the problem with the electoral college is the States changed the way they count electoral votes from the original way they were used by our founding fathers....

the Political parties in power, changed their States so that no one or near no one in any of the independent parties can garner any electoral votes, because the states decided to make laws to protect the big two parties within the State.....and made their electoral college votes for the State, as winner takes all electoral votes....

As example, Ross Perot garnered 20 MILLION votes but the way the parties set it up within the states, he got ZERO electoral votes.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE of what our founding fathers created with the electoral college and Madison's and Adam's intent.....

Also the only electoral advantage of smaller states was suppose to be the 2 extra electors each state was given for their 2 senators....just like in the Senate, small states have equal voice as the largest states because all get just 2 senators.... the advantage given to small states was only suppose to be these two electors given for their two senators.

It's the way the parties manipulated the electoral college in each state, that makes the system not work in allowing the best and the brightest have a chance, becuase of this winner take all electors crud.

Don't like it? Change your state laws or move to Nebraska or Maine.

State law has nothing to do with it but states' rights have everything to do with it. Most of the arguments against the EC are founded on complete ignorance of American history and specifically why states agreed to join the union.

State laws determine how electoral votes are won by the candidates. Nebraska and Maine use Congressional district winners to award their electoral votes. The popular vote winner gets 2 votes and the winner in each district can get the others.

 

[The Derp]

State law has nothing to do with it but states' rights have everything to do with it. Most of the arguments against the EC are founded on complete ignorance of American history and specifically why states agreed to join the union.

So this post is just a flood of jabberwocky nonsense.

States' Rights have nothing to do with the Electoral College. The rules governing the electoral college were written at a time when commerce didn't routinely happen across state borders, instantaneous communication was smoke signals, carrier pigeons, or men on horseback, and fast travel was two months it took to go from Boston to Georgia in a horse-drawn carriage.

You don't cure cancer with leeches, so why do you apply 18th century thinking to government?

 

[Meathead]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Democratic winning presidents have always won the popular vote along with winning the electoral college....

The Republican presidents as of late, not so much...and that's when it's the issue...when a president doesn't even come close to winning the popular vote of the people yet wins the presidency through the electoral college only...and not by its citizen's choice too or even close to its citizen's choice too....

And it makes sense for there to be discontent among citizens, when that happens....imo

Great. This is a republic, not a democracy. Not sure why you advocate for mob rule.

Do you know what the long term consequences Are?


Take the time from your disappointment from last November and consider it.

Still have no clue how a person that claims to follow Christ could possibly vote for the Clintons.

We are a democratic Republic, which does not mean we allow the minority rule over the majority, but that we give the minority a shot, to be heard.

Only a PURE Democracy allows the majority to always win, and the people vote on every issue to decide....

THERE ARE NO pure democracies anywhere in the whole world....

But there are lots of different kinds of Democracies among all the Nation's in the world that are not PURE Democracies and the USA is one of them.

Also all 50 state govts are Democracies

I have rarely seen anything as intrinsically worthless as the post above. All democracies today, with very few exceptions, are led by minority parties, relying instead on coalitions.

The entire point is that the US is no worse than the European parliamentary system where a party with as little as 20% of the electorate can elect a prime minister.