# The Electoral College is not fair!



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.

However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).

Population vs. Electoral Votes - Fairvote
---------------------------------------

Maj. rule happens in the Federal and State House and Senate and the Supreme Court.  Yet the maj vote does not count in the elections for Potus.  WHY? 



> While there is evidence that the founders assumed the electors would be independent actors,
> https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college



There are 2 Senators from every state and they have their representatives in the house to bring their voices to the congress.  We do not need the EC any more.  The population of the US in 1800 was about 5 million and only 13 states, people were uneducated and the workers did not vote, or the women or blacks, only the  rich white men aka the founders. 

Most workers did not even know who was running when the EC was invented.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...



Penny, ever spewing out the recent Talking Points of her Overlords. 

Get over it, Penny, the Electoral College is here to stay.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



Do you have a comment on the EC or not, its not fair.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...


Its a quaint and archaic system. The person with the most votes should win , that is the same all over the world. Any system that gets in the way of that is corrupt.  .


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Repeat this to yourself if you can understand it: we are a representative republic. Not a straight democracy. Can you understand that?


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



Buzz off Tommy we soundly defeated your ilk awhile back and drove you off the land. Wish we could do it again, just to put you back in line.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



A "quaint and archaic system". Says the man typing from a KINGDOM with a goshdarn QUEEN

that's great Tommy tell us some more


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 20, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...


That’s what the T Totalers said about Prohibition


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Nosmo King said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Tell me if you see any differences between Prohibition and the Electoral College. I will wait right over here


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...



IOW, "waaaaahhhhh, we can't win anymore, or anyway it's not guaranteed, and our ruse of importing immigrants to vote Democrats is exposed!! Waaah, waaah, waaah, let's dissolve the Electoral College and maybe then we can win!!!"


----------



## Rocko (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...



That is the wrong way of looking at it. Without the EC most states would get left behind. Once you understand the cocept of the sovereignty of each state you’ll understand that the EC is a system that affectively makes sure that all of them have representation in our presidential elections. It’s not about slave owners or any other nonsense you hear on MSNBC


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Rocko said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



Good luck trying to get Penny to understand the difference between a representative republic and a democracy. I mean that. Good luck.


----------



## Meathead (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


These were the conditions states entered the Union. Smaller states did not want to be dominated by eastern urban shitholes yesterday and to this day.


----------



## Rocko (Mar 20, 2019)

Meathead said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...



I wonder if Penelope thinks if it would be “fair” if California and New York dictated who ever president was


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> *The Electoral College is not fair!*




*GO SUCK ON IT*

*

 *

Quit being so damn stupid and lazy.  If you want to know why we have had the EC since the founding of this country, you have a computer in front of you, use it!

The democrats wouldn't by crying over the EC now unless they felt it was blocking their way and they needed it gone to win a presidential election!  You've alienated 2/3rds of the country against you calling us vile, deplorable and whatever, now you want mob rule so you can win without us!  PERIOD.

The EC was DESIGNED so that the president would also have to represent the largest swath of the nation and thus the greater share of the country, not just a "head count."  That's why Trump won with 30 states and Hillary lost with her meager 20 states.  Really sucks huh, that you still lost even after getting in those 900,000+ illegal and fraudulent votes!


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

Rocko said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



I think the maj.  vote would be best, if its good enough for the Congress and Supreme Court, its good enough for the Potus and VP.

Do you think the EC is fair, obviously its not.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Its a quaint and archaic system. The person with the most votes should win , that is the same all over the world.



You're a funny jackass.  How dare America do things different from the rest of the world right?  America IS because all the rest of you SUCK ASS.

Trump DID get the most votes:  he got 306 to Hillary's mere 232.  When Great Britain gets bigger than a PARKING LOT and has 50 states too, you can do it any how you PLEASE.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

Rocko said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



Why do voters in Wyoming get a stronger vote than say Texas or Forida or my state, MI.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

Meathead said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...



There were 13 states when the EC was invented.  And Wyoming didn't even exist.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



Just for starters, Penny. Just for starters. You realize we don't vote for Supreme Court?


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > *The Electoral College is not fair!*
> ...



I know why, if you don't, then read.  No illegals vote, they would not be caught dead at the polls.  You seem full of right wing talking points.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Rocko said:
> ...



Yes but they go by maj vote and so does congress.  1 vote is the deciding factor for the SC and the most of the votes in Congress.  *1 vote.*


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



That's not a revelation for most people, Penny. I hope you realize


----------



## Rocko (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



They don’t. Collectively the votes of Texas far outweigh the votes of Wyoming


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



The presidential vote goes by majority too, just by state. Because, again, we're a representative republic, not a pure democracy. Do you know what that means


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 20, 2019)

The EC is an anachronism, created at a time when the geographic size of a state was the same as the size of its population: big states had large populations, small states had small populations.

Clearly that’s no longer the case.

And as an anachronism it’s indeed time to do away with the EC.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> No illegals vote, they would not be caught dead at the polls.



RIGHT, crackerbrain.  Then PROVE IT.  Institute voter ID in all 50 states.  Quit running and hiding from it, quit saying one thing while always doing another!


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The EC is an anachronism, created at a time when the geographic size of a state was the same as the size of its population: big states had large populations, small states had small populations.
> 
> Clearly that’s no longer the case.
> 
> And as an anachronism it’s indeed time to do away with the EC.



That would take a Constitutional Convention. Think you'll win that one??

Boy you folks are losing harder than I thought. I mean you are REALLY losing. Hard. lol


----------



## Meathead (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


That's the point. God you're an idiot.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 20, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The EC is an anachronism, created at a time when the geographic size of a state was the same as the size of its population: big states had large populations, small states had small populations.



Right, Dingleberry.  Another well-researched, thought out post by you.




 



 



 

NEXT quack theory by you?


----------



## cnm (Mar 20, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Buzz off Tommy we soundly defeated your ilk awhile back and drove you off the land.


Then created a constitution based on British language and precedent.


----------



## cnm (Mar 20, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> NEXT quack theory by you?


How is one supposed to make sense of those dissimilar maps? Was it too hard to find population by state?

edit...No, not very hard at all. Smh.

1790 United States Census - Wikipedia


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 20, 2019)

cnm said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Buzz off Tommy we soundly defeated your ilk awhile back and drove you off the land.
> ...


Actually it was created by Welshmen.
Its obvious that in the current situation the partisans will not discuss this. But a situation where one mans vote is worth more than anothers based on geography has some flaws. Taxation and representation comes to mind.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...



Well the president might make taxation policy but ultimately Congress has to pass that. Congress sets tax policy, Tommy.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 20, 2019)




----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...


Of course you want shithole Los Angeles determine who’s President.


----------



## Pilot1 (Mar 20, 2019)

Rocko said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



How many times do we have to say it?  Are these people incapable of doing their own n historical research?   We are a collection of Sovereign States.  The STATES elect the President, not the PEOPLE.  The Founders knew the populations centers would gang up on the rest of the country and insert MOB RULE.  The EC avoids this at least for ONE ELECTION.


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



It's fair when you win; unfair when you lose. I'll tell you how to win: have POLICIES that don't tell the Rust Belt that they are getting food stamps instead of jobs!!! It works; ask Donald Trump!!!

Greg


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Penny, ever spewing out the recent Talking Points of her Overlords.
> 
> Get over it, Penny, the Electoral College is here to stay.



Meh, it will be gone within a decade, either by amendment or enough states signing on to the Electoral Pact that awards their electors to the winner of the national popular vote.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> OW, "waaaaahhhhh, we can't win anymore, or anyway it's not guaranteed, and our ruse of importing immigrants to vote Democrats is exposed!! Waaah, waaah, waaah, le



Um, yeah putting guys in office the people did want who then proceed to really mess things up.  What a terrible idea.  Obama had barely undid the damage Bush did and along comes trump to mess it up again.


----------



## cnm (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> But a situation where one mans vote is worth more than anothers based on geography has some flaws. Taxation and representation comes to mind.



Shhhhhhhhh.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penny, ever spewing out the recent Talking Points of her Overlords.
> ...



It's most unlikely an end run will be permitted.  Most other states will not be interested in New York and California running the show.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...


Yeah, all over the world, those economies suck, people are moving to the only country that still has some freedoms, why is it that way?  Because it isnt mob rule, but representative republic which infuriates the Marxists.  Because they know their policies dont appeal to the people who actually work, so they must RIG THE SYSTEM, so they can win.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> It's most unlikely an end run will be permitted. Most other states will not be interested in New York and California running the show.



Which wouldn't happen, anyway.  I'm not sure why you guys keep trotting out this canard, given that the Republican candidate usually gets 40% of the vote in those states.  

Here's the real problem.  If you live in Texas or New York, there's no point in voting at all...  You won't flip your electors.  

Letting three rust belt states run the show is so much better?  They can't even run their own states.


----------



## August West (Mar 20, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > No illegals vote, they would not be caught dead at the polls.
> ...


What little voter fraud that actually occurs is almost always done with absentee ballots. How would voter ID stop that?


----------



## cnm (Mar 20, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Yeah, all over the world, those economies suck, people are moving to the only country that still has some freedoms, why is it that way?


Because you're begging the question, and you're wrong, people are moving to many other countries than the US.


----------



## hadit (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



And if the US was one gigantic state, that would be right. It is not, however. It is a collection of states, each of which is a unique entity. Thus, the EC was created to ensure that the smaller states would not be trampled by the larger ones when it comes to electing the president, the only office that covers all the states.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Mar 20, 2019)

Did everyone get their activist tool kit ? 
how could you be against the movement to save our "democracy"

Activist Toolkit - FairVote
*Activist Toolkit*
Interested in joining the movement to fix our democracy? Select your state on the Action Map below and email the corresponding FairVote state partner by emailing (your state)@fairvote.org. You will be connected directly with activists organizing on the ground, or if a group hasn't yet formed in your state, a FairVote organizer will be in touch soon!


Organize
Educate
Mobilize
Handouts 
Resources
Derp


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > NEXT quack theory by you?
> ...





Weatherman2020 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



Along with every individual vote.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

hadit said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



So why does Wyoming have 3 EC, they deserve 1. They also have 2 Senators and Representatives, they need to do the talking for those people.  Small state, you mean unpopulated that hardly pay any tax, yet each person has more voting rights.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 20, 2019)

The EC is perfectly fair.  The U.S. is a Republic of STATEs.  The EC is designed to prevent Tyranny of the Majority, which is what would happen is the whinging crybully Dem-Progs ever destroyed it.

I'll note that the Dem-Progs keep screeching that Trump is going to destroy our institutions because he is Literally Hitler, yet they are the ones trying to get rid of the EC, expand the SCOTUS so they can pack it, void the 1st and 2nd Amendments...and now some are even saying we should get rid of the Senate.


----------



## Pilot1 (Mar 20, 2019)

In a Presidential Election, Individual Votes only matter to sway the STATE'S Electoral College to give their vote to the candidate that won the popular vote in that STATE.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

boedicca said:


> The EC is perfectly fair.  The U.S. is a Republic of STATEs.  The EC is designed to prevent Tyranny of the Majority, which is what would happen is the whinging crybully Dem-Progs ever destroyed it.
> 
> I'll note that the Dem-Progs keep screeching that Trump is going to destroy our institutions because he is Literally Hitler, yet they are the ones trying to get rid of the EC, expand the SCOTUS so they can pack it, void the 1st and 2nd Amendments...and now some are even saying we should get rid of the Senate.



You know its not, the *tyranny of the Maj is in Congress and the SC.   *No one is saying get rid of the senate, no one.   You are talking like Hannity, and Ingraham, exaggeration.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 20, 2019)

Seriously? PWAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAH!







 


I gotta finish laughing 1st..


----------



## Maxdeath (Mar 20, 2019)

Pen maybe you should look at the name. It is the President of the United States of America. It is not the President of California and New York or the President of a few states.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes. Only two states, *Nebraska* and *Maine*, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule.
*U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions - National Archives*

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions
------------------------------------------

then we should not have winner take all states, like TEXAS.  You have your choices, I can bet you do want to get rid of winner take all states.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 20, 2019)

Okay, 230 years it's been fine, and NOW it's not fair? In 2019? Why now? Wtf?!

LMAO! STFU!

I have a theory Penelope is a Russian anyways.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...




Each state has two senators, go back to school Senate is for states rights.



.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



Yep, that is what I said. Good you are aware of it.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> Okay, 230 years it's been fine, and NOW it's not fair? In 2019? Why now? Wtf?!
> 
> LMAO! STFU!
> 
> I have a theory Penelope is a Russian anyways.



Because, we have 325 million people now and 50 states instead of 4 million and 13 states.  There is no need for the EC anymore , the people are educated today, and we all know who is running for President. We have newspapers and internet.  We no longer have pony express.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...




So how is it unfair that a small state like Wyoming has one representative for 650,000 people and California has one representative for around 700,000 people?

It looks even to me.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

I made my case, and even if you do not say so, you know I'm right.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, 230 years it's been fine, and NOW it's not fair? In 2019? Why now? Wtf?!
> ...



Oh! So those facts can't be changed with the stroke of a keyboard or searches skewed, now could they? 

Remember, Hillary has a 91% chance to win!

Google peaked around 2007-2009 and it's been downhill ever since, and all the corporate monopolized press publishes is globalist garbage day in and day out.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Wyoming has less than 600,000 and Ca has 745,000 for each rep.  So its even , unless you want it to be more fair and let CA have 1 more.  Each have 2 Senators, unless you want CA to have 4 or maybe 10 or 15?


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



Gore and Hillary both won the maj vote.  If the Dems get control you will see it changed to be more significant for the era.


----------



## Oldstyle (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



The EC was set up by the Founding Fathers so that bigger States with larger cities wouldn't be able to dictate to the rest of the nation politically.  Fair?  It's been "fair" for a long long time because it's how our political system works!  Is it "fair" that States like New Hampshire and Iowa have so much influence over the primaries?  That's the way our system is set up however.  Should a candidate that can't win primary votes in Iowa sue to have those results nullified?  Hillary Clinton was perfectly fine with the EC when it looked like she couldn't possibly lose that to Donald Trump.  She ran her campaign...he ran his.  The result is what it is!  Don't you think it's time for you on the left to admit that the problem wasn't the EC but the Clinton campaign itself?


----------



## hadit (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Like I said, they are separate entities, and the EC was deliberately set up to prevent large states from trampling smaller ones when selecting the president. If you truly want the national popular vote to select the president, you should eliminate the individual states. 

You can say it's not fair, but it was deliberately done that way.

If you want taxes paid to be a consideration in determining the relative power of votes, I guess you could apply a multiplier for individual votes based on how much tax an individual paid the previous year.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 20, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > NEXT quack theory by you?
> ...



Hard to make sense of those maps?  I thought it was very easy.  And it gave you not only an idea of the static numbers but also the DISTRIBUTION within the state.  But thanks for publishing the census data, too bad you didn't do it in the first place.  It only goes farther to prove my point that Clayton Jones is full of HORSE SHIT.  It shows NO correlation between size of state and population in his mythical proposal that the EC is archaic and irrelevant today, in fact, your data shows tiny Massachusetts had 10,000 more people than New York State.  Another BULLSHIT attempt showing once again how the Left throws garbage out there dressed up as if they were certified FACTS.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...



Because the people do not elect the President.  The States do.  Now, the elections direct the states in who that state should select, but to ensure that each state is important, it's the states who select the President.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Irrelevant and a stupid comment.  Do better.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



And that's why they have 3 EC votes.  Because they have 2 Senators and 1 Representative.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes. Only two states, *Nebraska* and *Maine*, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule.
> *U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions - National Archives*
> 
> U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions
> ...



That's up to the States to decide.  It is not the fault of the Electoral College that the states have winner take all results.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> I made my case, and even if you do not say so, you know I'm right.



Your case fails and you appear stupid.  You are not correct.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 20, 2019)

August West said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...




Oh really?  Link?  Proof to support any of that?

Hillary Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, bolsters Trump argument, study finds

Noncitizen illegal vote number higher than estimated

Harvard Study: Yes, Illegals Help Get Democrats Elected

Study: 5.7 Million Noncitizens Voted in Past Election

Voter ID Laws Do Not Suppress Voting, Study Finds


----------



## Defiant1 (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The EC is perfectly fair.  The U.S. is a Republic of STATEs.  The EC is designed to prevent Tyranny of the Majority, which is what would happen is the whinging crybully Dem-Progs ever destroyed it.
> ...




The Senate was lost after the 17th amendment.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > I made my case, and even if you do not say so, you know I'm right.
> ...



tell me why I am wrong then, you know I'm not? Make you case??


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



As you know I do not believe any of those links.  I believe suppression of the vote by Republicans.  Do not waste you time  saying non citizens voted.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes. Only two states, *Nebraska* and *Maine*, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule.
> ...



There is no need for the EC, most know it and admit it.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...





hadit said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Yet Wyoming is trampling on everyone else.  Also no the EC was set up because the only people who voted were rich white men.  No one voted, they barely had news. Can you even realize what 1800 must of been like??


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...



AS YOU KNOW:

I don't give a FLYING CRAP what you really believe or think. We all pretty much know what that is anyway.

I realize you wouldn't believe in the Sun if I parked it in your backyard, so obtuse and inflexible to facts you are.
I rarely even bother wasting my time responding to you because it is a better use of my day picking dead skin off my elbow than trying to "converse" with you.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 20, 2019)

cnm said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, all over the world, those economies suck, people are moving to the only country that still has some freedoms, why is it that way?
> ...


You are correct, they must first go into Mexico and then cross illegally from the Southern Border...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


This is how stupid you are , you dumb kuuuunt.  There were free blackmen in the new world that also fought for their independence and voted in the elections that came after their freedom from a Brit King.  But you arent supposed to know that, because your liberal elites have dumbed you so down, you are in the moron range of IQ.  Of course the Democrats of the South didnt like this as their blacks were slaves.....


----------



## boedicca (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The EC is perfectly fair.  The U.S. is a Republic of STATEs.  The EC is designed to prevent Tyranny of the Majority, which is what would happen is the whinging crybully Dem-Progs ever destroyed it.
> ...




Oh blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzzz

You Crybully Progs are the ones who are intent on destroying our system of a Democratic Republic and making the entire country into provinces of the DC Secular Monarchy.  Getting rid of the EC is part and parcel with ensuring the Tyranny.  That's why you loons want to let illegals and 16 year olds vote...along with all of the dead people you continue to resuscitate.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 20, 2019)

Defiant1 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Not entirely.  We still have two Senators per state.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Because the purpose of the Presidential election is to allow the STATES to elect the President, not the people.  Therefore, your premise is wrong and the fact that you don't seem to understand that it is in the Constitution that it's the STATES that elect the President is why you appear stupid.

"Each *state* shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

Article II


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Can you even realize how overwrought and irrelevant this is?


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...





> Colorado joins effort to elect presidents by popular vote, go around Electoral College
> 
> The other states that have signed on since 2007 are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia.
> 
> Legislatures in Delaware and New Mexico have also passed bills in those states, though their governors haven’t yet signed them



I can see Mi joining as well as PA, maybe WI.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



So, if the population of the state votes for one candidate, but the national popular vote goes to another candidate, the state should ignore their own population and vote for the loser from that state?  Doesn't seem wise.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 20, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



They are going to add their votes all together and all the EC's will go to the one candidate with the most votes.  The more states the better.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...



This is why Social Promotions hurt, Penelope needed to repeat grammar school Civics


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...





C'mon, CF.....our gal Penny was the Summer School Valedictorian!


----------



## Vastator (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...


Mob rule seldom has “fairness” in mind when exerting its power...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Yeah, when all the totals add up to President Trump then all the EC's go to President Trump, you can bet those Dimwitocraps of those states will be looking to string up the guys who took their vote away.  Liberals never use their brains, of course they never had a brain in the first place...


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 20, 2019)

Penelope said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Ah, so the winner take all system you were whining about this morning?  Now you like it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...


Don't be too sure. WE Dems are working on it. You people are scared shitless of our succeeding because you will loose more elections. There have been 4 times in history when the candidate who won the EC did not get the popular vote and they were all Republicans


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Mar 20, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



It should be WE people. We are still one country and its lose not loose.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...


Repeat this to YOURSELF. There is nothing in the definition of a Representative Republic ( I prefer Constitutional Republic) that precluded the election of the president by popular vote. The states elect their state and federal representatives by popular vote. We have three branches of government with a system of checks and balances so no president, regardless of how she is elected has absolute power even if elected by a popular vote. A "direct democracy"  would only exist if the people everything were put to a popular referendum. God for fucking bid if that happens. To many fucking idiots out there .


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 20, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



You people will never get what you want.


----------



## hjmick (Mar 20, 2019)

The abject ignorance of the OP, and its author, is mind boggling...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 20, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


And?   This isnt mob rule, it takes a 2/3 majority in the house and senate to pass a amendment to the constitution and 3/5th of the states to ratify it.  Before you fucking Commies even get close , you can expect the angry mob rule to come out and quell your commie ass real quick..


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 20, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...





> To many fucking idiots out there .


 About 50% of the voters are fucking idiots and they voted for Hillary.  The same person who stole the primary election away from Bernie(Socialist) Sanders who owns three $600,000 houses and doesnt share any of them with the rest of you sorry dumbass liberals.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...


Thank you for that brilliant retort.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Mar 20, 2019)

…..and when you add in the desire to assign voting rights for massive numbers of illegal aliens as well as 16 year olds, one thing is perfectly clear.

Today's Democratic party is not the least bit interested in crafting effective policy. All they are doing is looking for ways to get elected.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Mar 20, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Hey man don’t be a dick.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


Damn!! your posts are brilliant and enlightening!!. Keep them coming. You intellect and insight is a great asset and raises the bar on the quality of political discourse on the USMB! Bless you!


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Mar 20, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



LOL. Triggered much?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Mar 20, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



That’s all you got ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Mar 20, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Mar 20, 2019)

The EC is on the way out. The "National Popular Vote Compact" count is getting nearer to 270. It won't happen by 2020, but there's a possibility it could happen by 2024, if enough states swing blue, as they're doing.

It says a lot about the Trumpflakes that they think "all votes should count equally" is a bad thing. Corrupt elitists to the core, those Trumpflakes, thinking that their special snowflake votes should count more. That can't last. The immoral minority can only tyrannize the moral majority for so long.

Don't fret about it, Trumpflakes. You're happier when you're losing. I mean, just look what miserable human beings you all are now. When you're losing, you can hide your corruption and incompetence, and fewer people laugh at you. You can't do that now. We plan to make you happy by returning you to your natural state of loserdom.

Other topics: When Trump is dead and buried, will they have to install extra drainage around his tomb to handle all those people making a pilgrimage to piss on his grave? After all, that will be considered a rite of passage for loyal Americans. There will be lines.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 20, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



That's not true, you historical illiterate.  Look up Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams.


----------



## Leo123 (Mar 21, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Its a quaint and archaic system. The person with the most votes should win , that is the same all over the world. Any system that gets in the way of that is corrupt.  .



The EC has done well for 200 years Tommy.   You need to understand that America is a vast land mass.  Our port-cities are most highly populated but much more geographic America exists.   The EC was meant to thwart control of a minority of densely populated States.   It has to do with equality Tommy.   You know the equality you and the libs constantly shout about.  In fact I would say that one of the big reasons for the success of the U.S. is the EC.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Mar 21, 2019)

hadit said:


> Like I said, they are separate entities, and the EC was deliberately set up to prevent large states from trampling smaller ones when selecting the president. If you truly want the national popular vote to select the president, you should eliminate the individual states.



in essence thats pretty much what the national popular vote will do.ya know the left and its love of a centralized power .

that could certainly be a triggering event , states may seriously consider seceding


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 21, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Its a quaint and archaic system. The person with the most votes should win , that is the same all over the world. Any system that gets in the way of that is corrupt.  .
> ...


The states are just pieces of land. People are the thing. And a lot of peoples votes are rendered worthless by the current system. That should be addressed to maintain the integrity of the system. What that looks like should be subject to discussion, these things should not be done lightly.


----------



## Decus (Mar 21, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



The Scots and Northern Irish voted to remain in the EU but the popular vote took what the majority decided in Scotland and Northern Ireland and pissed on it.

You spend most of your time bitching and moaning about Brexit. Heh dipshit enjoy your majority vote and shut up.

'


----------



## airplanemechanic (Mar 21, 2019)

Hey Pen-a-lope.....the population of New York City is higher than Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama combined. Should one city in one state have more power to elect the president than 3 states in the nation? I think not.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Mar 21, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Just go back to bowing to the Queen, Tommy, you're not even a citizen here.


----------



## wamose (Mar 21, 2019)

The electoral college actually makes our elections fairer. Illegal voting and our biased media and education systems are far more dangerous to our countries survival.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 21, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


talking about worthless...there is Britain......Where a Radical Muzzie rules the capital...


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Its a quaint and archaic system. The person with the most votes should win , that is the same all over the world. Any system that gets in the way of that is corrupt.  .
> ...



No they have representatives and Senators, and its now archaic.   Trump opinion of the EC in 2012 was it interfered with democracy , but now he likes it.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 21, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...


Why dont you provide some proof of that you cowardly fuck?


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

wamose said:


> The electoral college actually makes our elections fairer. Illegal voting and our biased media and education systems are far more dangerous to our countries survival.



No it does not. what is fair that one vote in Wyoming means more than a vote in CA or TX or MI or any populous state?

Voter suppression is dangerous, and no illegals do not vote, they do not go near polling places.


airplanemechanic said:


> Hey Pen-a-lope.....the population of New York City is higher than Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama combined. Should one city in one state have more power to elect the president than 3 states in the nation? I think not.



and the less populous states have equal representatives in Congress to give them a voice. 

You right wingers must think the EC is full of Congressmen!!


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Yet in the US Congress and  the Supreme Court its mob (maj) rule.  Also most states are winner take all for the EC. You guys do not seem to understand the reasoning for the EC centuries ago, and today.


----------



## Vastator (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Wrong again. You’re nothing if not consistent. Educate yourself...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> wamose said:
> 
> 
> > The electoral college actually makes our elections fairer. Illegal voting and our biased media and education systems are far more dangerous to our countries survival.
> ...





> Illegal voting and our biased media and education systems are far more dangerous to our countries survival.


And liberals lie all the time....which is why liberal main stream media's polling is worse than President Trumps....and people like you are clueless about how fucked up Socialism was, is and always will be...Cant fix stupid and they vote Democrat.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Before Harry Reid(you know the guy who got smacked down by his PE equipment) was the guy who went nuclear on justice nominees, he was warned that it could come back and bite the Dems in the ass, and it has....Because liberals are just plain stupid.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Those states that are controlled by the Democrats are, but like with Ohio, when President Trump promised to bring jobs back and has, do you think those states that would of split the vote now would have all EC go to President Trump thus like Ronald Reagan's re-election be a landslide.  Liberals never learn, because they dont study history, which ends up repeating itself and the Dimwitocraps just rage and burn cities again.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > wamose said:
> ...



Yet you believe in corporate socialism.  So do you think the EC is full of congressmen??  And the EC fights for the states in congress?? 

By the way it sound you right wingers think that, that is the way small states get represented, nothing can be further from the truth.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



Tell that to Texas and Florida , they will not divide EC's up.  You are aware TX is the 2nd most populous state, aren't you?  The third is Florida.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


What is corporate socialism?  Unions? Fuck no, unions again make sure that the best get paid the same as the laggard does, thus creating animosity amongst the workers, then over promises pensions and healthcare thus putting the burden on the corporations and soon those corps go bankrupt, unions still gets their dues, but the employees are out of work.  Again proving that Socialism fails even in a (supposedly)free society that unions force their workers to join...


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



No the corporations control the congress with their lobbying, and monopolies. Small businesses are the job creators and small businesses do not lobby nor do they get tax breaks.
This thread is not about socialism though, its about the EC.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

The suit also alleges that *winner*-*take*-*all* violates the First Amendment. In the 2016 presidential race, Republican Donald Trump received 52.2 percent of the *Texas* popular vote, but won *all* of the *state's* 38 electoral votes. ... *Texas* has come under fire more than most *states* for its treatment of voters of color.Feb 21, 2018
*In lawsuit, activists say Texas' winner-take-all approach to the ...*

https://www.texastribune.org/.../lawsuit-challenges-winner-take-all-approach-elections/


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

Trump won Florida by 112,911 votes and got all the 29 EC votes.  Bush JR won it by less than 600 votes and got all the EC's.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 21, 2019)

The EC increases the power of the individual's vote.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> The EC increases the power of the individual's vote.



Nope just the opposite happens.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > The EC increases the power of the individual's vote.
> ...


How the fuck would an idiot like you know?

I did the calculations decades ago.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 21, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Says the "subject" you mean.


----------



## gipper (Mar 21, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...


While your government is currently ignoring the vote of the people on Brexit. Totalitarians are all the same.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...



If you try to mess with the EC, you're going to run into the same problem that prompted it in the first place. There's just not much incentive for small, rural states to belong to a federation if their votes are simply going to be ignored in favor of densely populated urban states.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

dblack said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



Their votes will not be ignored unless the republicans suppress them.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



How long ago, when the population of the US was not 325 million, look at AK 740000 and still gets 3 EC's.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



i don't know what that's supposed to mean. Are you aware of the reasons why the EC was designed as it was? Under pure democracy, small, rural states have no reason to join a union with large, populous states. Their votes will be overwhelmed by those of the populous states, and their concerns dismissed. The unequal distribution of power embodied in the EC was necessary to persuade them to join the union in the first place, and it remains necessary to hold it together. Pure majority rule is a death sentence for minority interests.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

Take ND, if not for the 3 EC's they have they would of not suppressed the Native American vote, it might make Republicans work for their votes.  750, 000 population includes the Native Americans.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> Hey Pen-a-lope.....the population of New York City is higher than Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama combined. Should one city in one state have more power to elect the president than 3 states in the nation? I think not.



Of course it should, being that it has more than 3 times the people. Any non-fascist would agree.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> *The Electoral College is not fair!*




The Electoral College is not perfect, pinhead.  Give us a list of all the things in this life which are.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > *The Electoral College is not fair!*
> ...



it need to go bye bye. Its far from perfect.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



It has worked just fine for 243 years until Democrats found they could lie, cheat, swindle, commit voter fraud, bring in millions of loyal Mexicans sworn to vote for them, recount chads till the cows came home and insult half the voters of the country telling them to kiss their ass and ignore their every issue and concern while thumbing their noses at the Constitution and even end up with a couple million more votes combined nationally, but still lose badly because the Electoral College was designed to PREVENT THAT, ensuring that presidents were elected on a wider base of regions and reasons than a simple mob majority.

But rather than figure out how to play the game and actually win within the rules as Trump did, as predictable, the Dems instead simply want to throw out the rule-book and change America to fit them rather than the other way around.  Don't hold your breath.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



  And I bet you think allowing 16 year olds to vote is a great idea.....
    Can you dipshits get anymore transparent?


----------



## Oddball (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).


WY and CA have exactly the same proportion of representation in Congress as they to the Electoral college - is that unfair as well?
The EC is not going anywhere - get used to it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...


I think we need to count every US citizen in every state and re-award electoral votes accordingly. Non-citizens would be excluded. That would reduce the number of electoral votes in California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, and Texas. Then it would be fair.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2019)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> And I bet you think allowing 16 year olds to vote is a great idea....



Well, no. Nobody does. Why are you pretending otherwise?




> Can you dipshits get anymore transparent?



So why did you push a fake story about Democrats supposedly wanting 16 years olds to vote? Were you just bamboozled by cult propaganda (for example, I just saw Pat Robertson pushing that lie), or were you lying deliberately?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> It has worked just fine for 243 years until Democrats found they could lie, cheat, swindle, commit voter fraud, bring in millions of loyal Mexicans sworn to vote for them,



You're lying outright. Boring.



> recount chads



Hundreds of legal votes in Florida weren't even counted once. That's not debatable. It's also not debatable that if they were counted once, Gore would have won. So, you cheated in Florida, and you won. Get over it already. Worst sore winners anyone has ever seen.

And now you're cranking your cheating machine into high gear. Vote suppression. Vote fraud.  Election fraud, like we just saw in North Carolina. Tossing Democratic ballots into the garbage is often how Republicans win elections.

What does it say about your party, that you need to cheat to win? After all, overwhelmingly, it's Republicans getting busted for cheating.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Hundreds of legal votes in Florida weren't even counted once. That's not debatable


Every legally cast ballot was counted at least twice.


> It's also not debatable that if they were counted once, gore would have won.


Gore never once held a lead in the FL election.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> Every legally cast ballot was counted at least twice.



No, that's not correct.

Under every version of Florida law, overvotes with clear voter intent -- that is, punching the Gore-chad and writing in "Gore"  -- were legal votes.

Those votes were spit out of the machines uncounted, and thus they were not counted even once.

Under Florida law, they should have been counted.

If they had been counted, Gore would have won handily, no matter what the chad standard was. The chads were just an excuse the Republicans used to trash legal votes.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > And I bet you think allowing 16 year olds to vote is a great idea....
> ...



   You were saying?
Damn you fuckers are liars!!

This week, far-left freshman Rep. Ayanna Presley (D-MA) introduced an amendment to a House resolution, H.R. 1, that would allow 16-year-olds to vote in federal elections in 2020.


Oregon Lawmakers Push for 16 Year Olds to Vote by 2020

The nation's capital may let 16-year-olds vote for president. Is that a good idea?

https://nypost.com/2019/03/02/this-is-why-16-year-olds-should-be-able-to-vote/


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> The EC is on the way out. The "National Popular Vote Compact" count is getting nearer to 270. It won't happen by 2020, but there's a possibility it could happen by 2024, if enough states swing blue, as they're doing.
> 
> It says a lot about the Trumpflakes that they think "all votes should count equally" is a bad thing. Corrupt elitists to the core, those Trumpflakes, thinking that their special snowflake votes should count more. That can't last. The immoral minority can only tyrannize the moral majority for so long.
> 
> ...



If you are so anti-constitution that you think the "National Popular Vote Compact" is a good idea, you are unworthy of having your opinion considered.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2019)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> This week, far-left freshman Rep. Ayanna Presley (D-MA) introduced an amendment to a House resolution, H.R. 1, that would allow 16-year-olds to vote in federal elections in 2020.



Oooh, one congressman! You got me. That means all Democrasts want 16-year-olds to vote.

Oh wait, it doesn't. You made that up.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> If you are so anti-constitution that you think the "National Popular Vote Compact" is a good idea, you are unworthy of having your opinion considered.



Do tell everyone how it violates the Constitution. Be specific.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > This week, far-left freshman Rep. Ayanna Presley (D-MA) introduced an amendment to a House resolution, H.R. 1, that would allow 16-year-olds to vote in federal elections in 2020.
> ...



    Who said all democrats?
Thats right...You did.
   So do you think it's a good idea?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Every legally cast ballot was counted at least twice.
> ...


How many of these votes were there?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> How many of these votes were there?



Somewhere around 500, IIRC.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > How many of these votes were there?
> ...


How do you know?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> If you are so anti-constitution that you think the "National Popular Vote Compact" is a good idea, you are unworthy of having your opinion considered.


The NPVC does not violate the constitution -- it is. however nothing more than a scheme to elect Democrats.
If the states already in the compact were -actually- concerned with whatever reason they have for joining it, they'd simply change their laws now, rather than wait for a number of states to join.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Every legally cast ballot was counted at least twice.
> ...





I've asked you previous to this.....are you simply a total imbecile, or an inveterate liar?

Don't be shy....which is it?


"If they had been counted, Gore would have won handily, no matter what the chad standard was. The chads were just an excuse the Republicans used to trash legal votes."

Sez who????


In short -- to recount a close race is acceptable and that is exactly what happened. *The vote-counting machines handed the win to Bush a SECOND time. 

In a study of the Florida's ballots, the Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.*

Electoral Vote...

George W Bush 271 


Albert Gore, Jr. 266 


Bush won the popular vote in 60% of the 50 states, 

Gore, winning the popular vote in 40% of the states

George W. Bush won 2,434 (78%) of the nation's 3,111 counties; 
Al Gore won 677 (22%) of the counties

George Bush won 51 (77%) of Florida's 67 counties 

Gore won 16 (23%) of the counties (primarily the population centers) 

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/election2000.htm


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > This week, far-left freshman Rep. Ayanna Presley (D-MA) introduced an amendment to a House resolution, H.R. 1, that would allow 16-year-olds to vote in federal elections in 2020.
> ...





Every time.

You lie....you're caught.....and continue to do so.

Must be painful to be you, huh?



Happiness would be seeing your picture on a milk carton.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


You are the one that asked about corporate socialism.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 21, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


What I am still trying to figure out is everytime there is an issue with voting machines, it is always in a liberal area.  You would think that if the liberals were so smart they would find someone who could count it right the first time , not over and over like we have seen since Gore V Bush.  That fugly bitch in broward county sure couldn't count and she has been there since Gore v Bush.


----------



## Leo123 (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Then their reps should wield just as much electoral power.  That is what the EC is all about.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> \'ve asked you previous to this.....are you simply a total imbecile, or an inveterate liar?



Oh, someone's sensitive over the failure of their AOC conspiracy gibberish. I understand. You worked on that for months, and it went nowhere. And then I rubbed salt in the wounds. No wonder you're butthurt.


> In short -- to recount a close race is acceptable and that is exactly what happened. *The vote-counting machines handed the win to Bush a SECOND time*


 
When my point was that the problem was with how the vote counting machines refjected valid votes, trumpeting the results of the vote counting machines makes you look especially retarded.

Like I've said before, you're not really dishonest. You're just crazy and stupid. You're not mentally competent enough to be held responsible for your actions, so we just consider you to be free entertainment.



> Happiness would be seeing your picture on a milk carton.



See? Even when you're homicidal, you're stupidly homicidal, so it's funny.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 21, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> it is. however nothing more than a scheme to elect Democrats.



Every Republican on this thread has basically admitted that they know Republicans will never win the popular vote again.

If Republican policies suck that badly, why not change those policies? Wouldn't that be an easier way to win than vote fraud, vote suppression, election fraud, the EC, and other tyranny-of-the-minority tactics?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > \'ve asked you previous to this.....are you simply a total imbecile, or an inveterate liar?
> ...





Watch this, dunce:

*In a study of the Florida's ballots, the Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.



BTW....it's 'As I said,'  not 'Like I said.'

And English is my second language......do you have a first?*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > it is. however nothing more than a scheme to elect Democrats.
> ...


Nice non-seq you have there.
Fact is, if people like you were so sure of that, you'd not be trying to get rid of the EC.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...



*Maj. rule happens in the Federal and State House and Senate and the Supreme Court. Yet the maj vote does not count in the elections for Potus. WHY? *

Those are the rules.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...



*However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. *

You're wrong.
One of their electoral votes corresponds to their 532,668 citizens.

The other two are because they're a state.


----------



## Penelope (Mar 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



Most states have about 700,000 for one representative and electoral college, why should Wyoming vote count more than mine.

Today the pop of Wyoming is 579300 , as of 2017.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...




Ahmed, you're a fucking retard.

Stick to coordinating Hamas rocket attacks.

What the democrats who you whore for want is to disenfranchise voters in 46 states.

Marxist democrats, - *The party of voter disenfranchisement.*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 21, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



Fuck off Paki.

You invaded a country that pisses in the face of the voters. You have NOTHING to contribute to American politics. Your voters passed Brexit, fucking abide by the legal vote, you fascist scum.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 21, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> [
> 
> Buzz off Tommy we soundly defeated your ilk awhile back and drove you off the land. Wish we could do it again, just to put you back in line.



We just kicked the shit out of his kind in Syria as well. Don't know that the Caliphate ruling Britianstan will ever be defeated, though.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Actually it is fair.

What would be unfair is relying on the National Popular Vote because only large populated states would matter while smaller states would lose their voice.

Obama and Clinton won the Electoral College twice, so was it unfair then?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Mar 21, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...



Unlike your country America is a Republic which mean each State under this system has more of a voice...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



*why should Wyoming vote count more than mine.*

In 1929, the number of representatives was capped at 435 and the minimum is one.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Because people in Wyoming are 1000 times smarter than a dumbass like you, so your state should be penalized for creating such stupid people.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 21, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



So you want the people of Wyoming to have zero representative's in the house?


You do know we started a war because of it right?


.


----------



## peach174 (Mar 21, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The EC is an anachronism, created at a time when the geographic size of a state was the same as the size of its population: big states had large populations, small states had small populations.
> 
> Clearly that’s no longer the case.
> 
> And as an anachronism it’s indeed time to do away with the EC.





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The EC is an anachronism, created at a time when the geographic size of a state was the same as the size of its population: big states had large populations, small states had small populations.
> 
> Clearly that’s no longer the case.
> 
> And as an anachronism it’s indeed time to do away with the EC.





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The EC is an anachronism, created at a time when the geographic size of a state was the same as the size of its population: big states had large populations, small states had small populations.
> 
> Clearly that’s no longer the case.
> 
> And as an anachronism it’s indeed time to do away with the EC.





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The EC is an anachronism, created at a time when the geographic size of a state was the same as the size of its population: big states had large populations, small states had small populations.
> 
> Clearly that’s no longer the case.
> 
> And as an anachronism it’s indeed time to do away with the EC.





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The EC is an anachronism, created at a time when the geographic size of a state was the same as the size of its population: big states had large populations, small states had small populations.
> 
> Clearly that’s no longer the case.
> 
> And as an anachronism it’s indeed time to do away with the EC.



News flash !
There still are States who have larger populations vs States who have smaller populations.

List of U.S. states by population - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 22, 2019)

mamooth said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > If you are so anti-constitution that you think the "National Popular Vote Compact" is a good idea, you are unworthy of having your opinion considered.
> ...



First, I never said it violates the Constitution.  That is your assumption, and if you want it defend it, defend it yourself.  But, let me point out that pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the legislature of each  state determines the manner by which its electors are chosen. Each state's number of electors is equal to the combined total of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives; currently there are 100 senators and 435 representatives.  Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment provides that the District of Columbia (D.C.) is entitled to a number of electors no greater than that of the least populous state (3)  Following the national presidential election day in the first week of November, each state counts its popular votes pursuant to that state's laws to designate presidential electors.  If you look at the Constitution, no where does it allow States to base their votes on the results of other states, thus invalidating the determination of the voters in their own state.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 22, 2019)

boedicca said:


> The EC is perfectly fair. The U.S. is a Republic of STATEs. The EC is designed to prevent Tyranny of the Majority, which is what would happen is the whinging crybully Dem-Progs ever destroyed it.
> 
> I'll note that the Dem-Progs keep screeching that Trump is going to destroy our institutions because he is Literally Hitler, yet they are the ones trying to get rid of the EC, expand the SCOTUS so they can pack it, void the 1st and 2nd Amendments...and now some are even saying we should get rid of the Senate.



Yes, Trump is literally Hitler.  Even kept a copy of _Mein Kampf_ on his bed side table, according to his Ex-wife. 

But the notion that the EC allowing and the Senate allowing smaller states more representation is absurd on its face. No other country does it this way.  Because it's stupid. 

Trump will end up being such a bad president we will end up modifying the constitution so something like this never happens again.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The EC is perfectly fair. The U.S. is a Republic of STATEs. The EC is designed to prevent Tyranny of the Majority, which is what would happen is the whinging crybully Dem-Progs ever destroyed it.
> ...




Why is it stupid?


The EC is the only reason we have the country we have now, if it wasn't for the EC we would of looked like Europe. A bunch of little countries... Denmark in Minnesota, Ireland in New York....


----------



## boedicca (Mar 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The EC is perfectly fair. The U.S. is a Republic of STATEs. The EC is designed to prevent Tyranny of the Majority, which is what would happen is the whinging crybully Dem-Progs ever destroyed it.
> ...




No other large country has had the historically smooth transitions of power that we do - at least until the Prog SoreLose Xyr Fascists started their Crybulling.


----------



## Polishprince (Mar 22, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...




I didn't attend Government School system, so I was taught civics.

If you had been, you would know that when the country was formed, the less populated states were concerned that they would be at the mercy of the highly populated ones and they would have no say.  So they came up with the electoral college as part of the solution to even the playing field between the states.

Without the EC, we don't have a USA.   

Personally, I think its fine.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 22, 2019)




----------



## peach174 (Mar 22, 2019)

The Democratic Party who claims to be for minorities ,is now trying to get rid of the EC.
The EC is what protects minorities in the election of our Nation's President.
Talk about insane!


----------



## MarathonMike (Mar 22, 2019)

This is yet another Liberal deception. *They claim to be "fighting for every vote" by pushing for the end of the EC. Nothing could be further from the truth.* We have one state out of fifty that contains nearly 10% of the entire population of the country. Within that state, the population is concentrated in a few densely populated cities and those cities are of course predominantly Democrat. 

We can't expect honesty out of the Democrats, so it is up to you to analyze their message and what they are really fighting for. It is NOT to make every vote count. _*It is to use the dominant DEM population of California to hand every Presidential election to a Democrat*._


----------



## mamooth (Mar 22, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> First, I never said it violates the Constitution.  That is your assumption, and if you want it defend it, defend it yourself.  But, let me point out that pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the legislature of each  state determines the manner by which its electors are chosen. Each state's number of electors is equal to the combined total of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives; currently there are 100 senators and 435 representatives.  Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment provides that the District of Columbia (D.C.) is entitled to a number of electors no greater than that of the least populous state (3)  Following the national presidential election day in the first week of November, each state counts its popular votes pursuant to that state's laws to designate presidential electors.  If you look at the Constitution, no where does it allow States to base their votes on the results of other states, thus invalidating the determination of the voters in their own state.



So you're saying it doesn't violate the Constitution, but it does violate the Constitution. Very convincing.

I note the Constitution doesn't place any standards on how states choose their electors. If they'd like, the states can flip coins, or base it all on the opinion of a single reindeer herder in northern Finland.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 22, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fact is, if people like you were so sure of that, you'd not be trying to get rid of the EC.



That's a retarded statement.

The reason we're trying to get rid of the EC is that we're very sure Democrats will keep winning the popular vote.

The reason Republicans are trying to keep the EC is that they're very sure Democrats will keep winning the popular vote.

Most of the Republicans aren't trying to deny it. They're just claiming that Republicans are special snowflakes whose votes should count more than Democratic votes.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 22, 2019)

mamooth said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is, if people like you were so sure of that, you'd not be trying to get rid of the EC.
> ...



  Pathetic post.


----------



## peach174 (Mar 22, 2019)

mamooth said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is, if people like you were so sure of that, you'd not be trying to get rid of the EC.
> ...



There was no Democratic or Republican party when the constitution was written.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 22, 2019)

mamooth said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is, if people like you were so sure of that, you'd not be trying to get rid of the EC.
> ...


Oh,. look at that.
You don't care about all votes mattering, one person one vote or any of the other platitudes you put up to sway the listless
You just want to win, and you know you can;t unless you change the rules.

Thanks for the admission.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Why is it stupid?
> 
> 
> The EC is the only reason we have the country we have now, if it wasn't for the EC we would of looked like Europe. A bunch of little countries... Denmark in Minnesota, Ireland in New York....



That's actually... retarded.  direct election of the president.  It works just fine.  It's how we elect every other office in the country.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> View attachment 251550



Okay, Population of Los Angeles County. 

10.16 Million.  

Population of those states might be lower, but they have more votes combined. 

One person, one vote... done!  this isn't complicated.  

You wingnuts also need to look at the future. When HIspanic Population growth turns Texas and Arizona blue, you guys will never be able to win in the EC.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2019)

peach174 said:


> The Democratic Party who claims to be for minorities ,is now trying to get rid of the EC.
> The EC is what protects minorities in the election of our Nation's President.
> Talk about insane!



No, it doesn't.  It gives undue influence to states populated by white people.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 251550
> ...


So 30 States combined can overcome Los Angeles!

That’s the stupidest excuse yet. Advocacy of new Unions is beyond stupid.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> So 30 States combined can overcome Los Angeles!
> 
> That’s the stupidest excuse yet. Advocacy of new Unions is beyond stupid.



Are you some kind of retarded person.   

Can you show me a state where everyone votes the same way, then you'd have a point.   There were lots of Republicans in Los Angeles, and a lots of Democrats in Texas, and none of them really mattered...  

The only people who mattered were a few people in Rust Belt states because Hillary didn't pander to them by promising them jobs that don't exist would come back.  

That's just... crazy.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > So 30 States combined can overcome Los Angeles!
> ...


Hilarious how the system was fine until Hillary got her ass kicked. 

If you can’t understand the concept of States not wanting to surrender their ability to elect a President, it simply exposes how stupid you Leftists are.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hilarious how the system was fine until Hillary got her ass kicked.



Here's the thing. Most times, the EC just confirmed what the popular vote was.  So people just thought of it as a formality.  

Even 2000, the vote was so close nationally and in Florida, you could argue a split decision either way.  

2016, the people made a pretty clear rejection of Trump and his racism.. and they were ignored because of this archaic system.  

The ironic thing is that if you shot up the GOP delegation with Sodium Penothal, they'd all admit, Trump is completely unfit to be President by any objective standard.  I suspect most of his supporters on USMB know it,... 

But if you ever wonder how a Mad Emperor stays in power, this is a great example.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 23, 2019)

mamooth said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > First, I never said it violates the Constitution.  That is your assumption, and if you want it defend it, defend it yourself.  But, let me point out that pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the legislature of each  state determines the manner by which its electors are chosen. Each state's number of electors is equal to the combined total of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives; currently there are 100 senators and 435 representatives.  Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment provides that the District of Columbia (D.C.) is entitled to a number of electors no greater than that of the least populous state (3)  Following the national presidential election day in the first week of November, each state counts its popular votes pursuant to that state's laws to designate presidential electors.  If you look at the Constitution, no where does it allow States to base their votes on the results of other states, thus invalidating the determination of the voters in their own state.
> ...



You're right, there is no standard on states choose their electors, so I guess ignoring the votes of the people of that state in order to select the candidate YOU support is fine. 

Honestly, I do enjoy when people like you reveal what sort of totalitarian jackasses you are.


----------



## hadit (Mar 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 251550
> ...



Get rid of the states, then you can.


----------



## hadit (Mar 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > So 30 States combined can overcome Los Angeles!
> ...



IOW, Hillary was campaigning for Miss Congeniality and can't figure out why she wasn't crowned Miss America.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 23, 2019)

hadit said:


> Get rid of the states, then you can.



Naw, we just need to get rid of the EC. 



hadit said:


> IOW, Hillary was campaigning for Miss Congeniality and can't figure out why she wasn't crowned Miss America.



Actually, she had some crazy idea that she was trying to win the people over, not the Kremlin.


----------



## peach174 (Mar 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > The Democratic Party who claims to be for minorities ,is now trying to get rid of the EC.
> ...



What a dumb thing to say.
Look up the history on it.


----------



## Flash (Mar 23, 2019)

What is not fair is for greedy welfare queen assholes to use our democracy to steal what they are too sorry to provide for themselves.


----------



## Anathema (Mar 23, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Its a quaint and archaic system. The person with the most votes should win , that is the same all over the world. Any system that gets in the way of that is corrupt.  .



Without the EC, American politicians running for National office can literally avoid the entire middle half of the country and even coastal areas that aren’t urban centers and still win. 

THAT is unacceptable. Especially since those coastal, urban centers are generally full of the people LEAST likely t have any idea what this country was intended to be and how it was intended to be run.


----------



## hadit (Mar 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Get rid of the states, then you can.
> ...



As long as states want to be represented as separate entities, we'll have the EC. And Hillary forgot that "the people", specifically democrats in California, don't elect the president, never have.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Get rid of the states, then you can.
> ...


Send in your money to do a Constitutional Amendment then. Let’s see how big a deal you think it is.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 23, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> You're right, there is no standard on states choose their electors, so I guess ignoring the votes of the people of that state in order to select the candidate YOU support is fine.



If that's your opinion, fine. I don't think anyone here agrees with it, but you are free to hold it.



> Honestly, I do enjoy when people like you reveal what sort of totalitarian jackasses you are.



I didn't say anything totalitarian. You did, and then you pretended I said it.

What have we learned? If it serves the goals of your cult, there's no lie you won't tell, no sleaze you won't stoop to. I enjoy it when corrupt moral relativists like you put their moral relativism on open display.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 23, 2019)

mamooth said:


> What have we learned? If it serves the goals of your cult, there's no lie you won't tell, no sleaze you won't stoop to. I enjoy it when corrupt moral relativists like you put their moral relativism on open display.


You don't care about all votes mattering, one person one vote or any of the other platitudes you put up to sway the listless
You just want to win, and you know you can;t unless you change the rules.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 23, 2019)

mamooth said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, there is no standard on states choose their electors, so I guess ignoring the votes of the people of that state in order to select the candidate YOU support is fine.
> ...



Wow, at NO point did I say you said you were a totalitarian.  I said  you REVEALED yourself to be a totalitarian jackass.

I suppose you're doing the best you can since you are wrong (my opinion) and can't really defend the idea that you want to ignore the votes of people that don't vote in a manner in which you approve.


----------



## Leo123 (Mar 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious how the system was fine until Hillary got her ass kicked.
> ...



Oh give it up....The People decided Trump is fit to be President.  Who the fuck are you to say he is unfit?   Is that what they TOLD you to post?  You are a dufus.


----------



## Leo123 (Mar 23, 2019)

What's hilarious to me is that one Democrat mantra is 'every vote counts' yet they want to deny equal voting power to less populace States by getting rid of the EC.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Mar 24, 2019)

the science is settled 



 

TINVOWOOT


----------



## Butch_Coolidge (Mar 24, 2019)

Wah, ([emoji24]) it’s not fair. We did Hillary a favor. She can’t even handle the stress of not being president. She can’t walk anymore. She should just park her fat ass on a beach somewhere, and relax. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Leo123 (Mar 24, 2019)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> the science is settled
> View attachment 251899
> 
> TINVOWOOT



Getting rid of the EC is tantamount to being ruled by the tyranny of a geographic minority.  Kind of like Nazi Germany.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2019)

peach174 said:


> What a dumb thing to say.
> Look up the history on it.



I have. The history is pretty fucking racist, too.  But I was talking about the net effect now. 



Flash said:


> What is not fair is for greedy welfare queen assholes to use our democracy to steal what they are too sorry to provide for themselves.



A Koch Brother, Flash and a Welfare Mom walk into a diner. The Waitress bring out 10 cookies, Koch wolfs down 9 of them and says to Flash, "That Welfare Queen wants half your cookie!"


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 24, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


He needs more coloring books and stuffed animals to get him thru this.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 24, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> What's hilarious to me is that one Democrat mantra is 'every vote counts' yet they want to deny equal voting power to less populace States by getting rid of the EC.


They want America to be like shithole Los Angeles.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Oh give it up....The People decided Trump is fit to be President. Who the fuck are you to say he is unfit? Is that what they TOLD you to post? You are a dufus.



The people decided nothing of the sort, as 10 million more voted against him than for him.  

An archaic system devised by slave-owners decided he was fit, because you have too many career politicians who thought they could benefit... that's not a good thing at all. 



Leo123 said:


> What's hilarious to me is that one Democrat mantra is 'every vote counts' yet they want to deny equal voting power to less populace States by getting rid of the EC.



This is where you are a little confused. The Less populated states don't get any more power.  Quite the contrary, most of the Rectangles with no people in them have very few voters to start with, and they are almost never in play in an election.  Well, Colorado is, sometimes.  

The only states that mattered this time were about five swing states, where because too many sensible people pissed away their votes on third party candidates who were even less fit than Trump, flipped the EC after the national majority clearly said "No". 

In IL, we got almost no visits from either candidate?  Why? IL despite being the fifth most populated state, was solid blue. 

Here's the real problem.  The GOP has spent the last 40 years becoming a white identity party.  That worked just fine in the 70s and 80s, when whites made up 88% of the electorate, but today that number is down to about 68% and shrinking. So the only way the GOP remains competitive is by doubling down on the white supremecy and hoping to win the EC, because they've only won the popular vote once barely since 1988.  

What they should have done is what Bush-43 did in 2004, and that was reach out to the people the party has ignored... But Trump (and Romney) effectively destroyed those efforts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 24, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Getting rid of the EC is tantamount to being ruled by the tyranny of a geographic minority. Kind of like Nazi Germany.



Really?  I think you don't know a lot about Germany.  

The Nazis LOST the only free election they held.  So instead, they went to their equivalent of an EC, put together a coalition with another Right Wing party, the German National People's Party (DNVP), and put Hitler in the Chancellor's chair.   

And much like with Trump, the "establishment" thought "well, we can control this guy!"  Franz von Papen, the leader of the Centrist Party thought this, up until the SS Came to his house on the Night of the Long Knives.  He survived, but became really damned compliant after that.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2019)

hunarcy said:


> Wow, at NO point did I say you said you were a totalitarian.  I said  you REVEALED yourself to be a totalitarian jackass.



Oh, that's totally different. Do carry on.



> I suppose you're doing the best you can since you are wrong (my opinion) and can't really defend the idea that you want to ignore the votes of people that don't vote in a manner in which you approve.



You're right. Saying all votes should count equally is totally totalitarian. Your version where your own side's votes count more is so much better.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh give it up....The People decided Trump is fit to be President. Who the fuck are you to say he is unfit? Is that what they TOLD you to post? You are a dufus.
> ...


Hysterical rants by the childish Left.


----------



## Leo123 (Mar 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Getting rid of the EC is tantamount to being ruled by the tyranny of a geographic minority. Kind of like Nazi Germany.
> ...



No dufus I meant that Germany, one country, ruled a good many countries or geographic area.  Try to comprehend.


----------



## Yarddog (Mar 24, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...




It's Also Not Fair if people in Wyoming have no voice, when federal laws can be passed that directly effect their state and lively hood. No uninformed voter in Los Angeles or New York city is going to give a shit about peoples lives in Wyoming or understand their different needs. 
So why do you want to silence the voting voice of sparsly populated states? Next to population centers like Chicago or DC thats exactly what would happen.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2019)

Yarddog said:


> It's Also Not Fair if people in Wyoming have no voice, when federal laws can be passed that directly effect their state and lively hood. No uninformed voter in Los Angeles or New York city is going to give a shit about peoples lives in Wyoming or understand their different needs.
> So why do you want to silence the voting voice of sparsly populated states? Next to population centers like Chicago or DC thats exactly what would happen.



Democracy worshippers see majority rule as a universal good.


----------



## Anathema (Mar 24, 2019)

dblack said:


> Democracy worshippers see majority rule as a universal good.



It’s not Democracy when the only votes that mean anything are the ones in a dozen or so urban areas where there is zero diversity of opinion and probably 75% of the voters are so uninformed, uneducated and uninvested regarding this country that they couldn’t qualify for citizenship if they weren’t already citizens.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 24, 2019)

Yarddog said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> ...




Thats what they want, the sissy liberals in this country to rule america


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Mar 24, 2019)

Anathema said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Democracy worshippers see majority rule as a universal good.
> ...



Screw Democracy.  I'll take the Republic any day of the week.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 24, 2019)

mamooth said:


> You're right. Saying all votes should count equally is totally totalitarian. Your version where your own side's votes count more is so much better.


You don't care about all votes mattering, one person one vote or any of the other platitudes you put up to sway the listless
You just want to win, and you know you can;t unless you change the rules.


----------



## Anathema (Mar 24, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> Screw Democracy.  I'll take the Republic any day of the week.



Screw then both - I’m an Authoritarian. I just wanted to point out why the EC was and will always be necessary to legitimize National elections in the USA.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Mar 24, 2019)

Anathema said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > Screw Democracy.  I'll take the Republic any day of the week.
> ...



Without the Electoral College, our elections would be a straight democracy.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 24, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...



Exactly, Gay marriage would be Illegal so would Abortions, Democracy doesn't work.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Mar 24, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...



Are you out of straw yet? The electoral college was not created because people were less educated in the past than they were now. 

There were a few primary reasons the founders selected the electoral system.  They feared political demagogues pandering to the populist at the expense of minorities Also Representatives from smaller states did not want the interest of their citizens to be marginalized by larger populated states.  The idea existed that a president should have geographically and demographically broad support over concentrated support in large states and cities.


----------



## RandomPoster (Mar 24, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.
> 
> However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).
> 
> ...



  I seem to recall in elementary school when civics was discussed that they mentioned a compromise that was made between big and small states that had to be settled before any states would agree to join the union.  I also remember how it was mentioned and also made sense how the basic issue they resolved has not, in principle, changed since the days of the founding fathers.  Now, the Democrats want to change the rules after the agreement has been struck in the same way children like to try and change the rules in the middle of a card game after they look at their cards.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> No dufus I meant that Germany, one country, ruled a good many countries or geographic area. Try to comprehend.



again, showing your ignorance of German history.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 25, 2019)

RandomPoster said:


> I seem to recall in elementary school when civics was discussed that they mentioned a compromise that was made between big and small states that had to be settled before any states would agree to join the union. I also remember how it was mentioned and also made sense how the basic issue they resolved has not, in principle, changed since the days of the founding fathers. Now, the Democrats want to change the rules after the agreement has been struck in the same way children like to try and change the rules in the middle of a card game after they look at their cards.



Naw, we want to change the rules because they don't work, and create bad results. 

Besides putting totally unqualified boobs like Trump and Bush into the office after the people rejected them, the EC disenfranchises millions of voters in states that are solid blue or solid red.


----------



## Leo123 (Mar 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > No dufus I meant that Germany, one country, ruled a good many countries or geographic area. Try to comprehend.
> ...



How so?  Do you deny that a small country like Germany controlled many other countries?   We don't want NY and LA to control geographic U.S.   Can you not see the similarity?  The EC PREVENTS a geographic minority from tyrannical rule of a larger geographic area.  Hey, Hillary just LOST....get over it.    Poor little TDSer.


----------



## Leo123 (Mar 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> > I seem to recall in elementary school when civics was discussed that they mentioned a compromise that was made between big and small states that had to be settled before any states would agree to join the union. I also remember how it was mentioned and also made sense how the basic issue they resolved has not, in principle, changed since the days of the founding fathers. Now, the Democrats want to change the rules after the agreement has been struck in the same way children like to try and change the rules in the middle of a card game after they look at their cards.
> ...



Fortunately your personal butt-hurt is not grounds for changing anything.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 26, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> How so? Do you deny that a small country like Germany controlled many other countries?



It didn't for very long. That's the point.  It really had nothing to do with more populous areas having more votes.  



Leo123 said:


> We don't want NY and LA to control geographic U.S. Can you not see the similarity? The EC PREVENTS a geographic minority from tyrannical rule of a larger geographic area. Hey, Hillary just LOST....get over it.  Poor little TDSer.



Again, you seem to be really proud that you put a crazy person who works for the Russians in charge because you can't man up that your tantrum has consequences.  You all fucked this up.  You passed up 10 guys who would have made okay presidents to put a nut in to show how angry you were the black guy hurt you feelings and the mean lady threatened to emasculate you.


----------

