11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a challenge: Make a logical, argument for why we should use the electoral college without mentioning "democrats".

We all know that your views are absolute and no matter what you will reject any argument supporting the EC.

Meanwhile not one of the 50 U.S. states wants to amend the U.S. constitution and the reason is that every state wants the power to direct their electoral votes as they choose. Personnally, I'd just love to watch the 2020 election results showing a pop majority for Trump and a Democrat electoral victory forfeited by this ten state pact.

No, you actually don't know shit. As I already said:

I am not arguing in favor of a national popular vote. I don't know if it's a good idea or a bad one. I asked for a logical argument for our current system, and you provided me one, which again, I appreciate. I responded to it logically.

Can you provide the argument I asked for?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That is not an answer to my question.

Yes, It is. Don't like it, change it!

No, it's really not. But I'm not surprised that my question flew over your head.

It flew straight into the ground.

You have a serious problem that you need to address. I hate to to tell you again, but you have a serious reading disability. You simply cannot process the written language.

Did you sustain any significant head injury as a child or adult?

You asked a question. It was answered. Because you don't like the answer, you claim that the questions was not answered.

There are two possibilities here: The first is like I said, that you have a learning disability. The second is that you are simply a dumbass.

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

 

[Pilot1]

[
You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

States elect the President, not people. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. Do you want MOB RULE, and NY, and CA to control the entire U.S.? What if they decide slavery is legal again? Do you want to be forced to go along with that, or have a say?

 

[Pop23]

Yes, It is. Don't like it, change it!

No, it's really not. But I'm not surprised that my question flew over your head.

It flew straight into the ground.

You have a serious problem that you need to address. I hate to to tell you again, but you have a serious reading disability. You simply cannot process the written language.

Did you sustain any significant head injury as a child or adult?

You asked a question. It was answered. Because you don't like the answer, you claim that the questions was not answered.

There are two possibilities here: The first is like I said, that you have a learning disability. The second is that you are simply a dumbass.

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

Because those were the terms of membership.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it's really not. But I'm not surprised that my question flew over your head.

It flew straight into the ground.

You have a serious problem that you need to address. I hate to to tell you again, but you have a serious reading disability. You simply cannot process the written language.

Did you sustain any significant head injury as a child or adult?

You asked a question. It was answered. Because you don't like the answer, you claim that the questions was not answered.

There are two possibilities here: The first is like I said, that you have a learning disability. The second is that you are simply a dumbass.

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

Because those were the terms of membership.

I'm not asking why things are the way they are. I'm asking you to tell me why they should be the way they are.

 

[Votto]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

GOOD--it's about time. There is no need for the electoral college vote today. Everyone can get to polling a precinct and or use mail in ballots. The electoral college was designed for people who couldn't vote because they lived out in the middle of nowhere. So our forefathers decided to do the electoral college system, in essense casting a vote for those people.

And as we saw on election night, any state west of Michigan didn't count, because Trump secured the 270 electoral college vote requirement by a measly 73K accumulated votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states.

Meaning that the Electoral college today is the worst case example of voter disenfranchisement still operational in the nation today.

Incorrect.

There was a bitter debate over whether or not the Constitution made the Federal government too powerful, as well as debate as to whether more populated states would hold more power over less populated states. That is why the Senate has two representatives per state no matter how big the population levels are.

And so it is with the Electoral college. If it were not for the Electoral College, the populations of both New York and California would decide each Presidential election as the rest of the nation would be held captive.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, It is. Don't like it, change it!

No, it's really not. But I'm not surprised that my question flew over your head.

It flew straight into the ground.

You have a serious problem that you need to address. I hate to to tell you again, but you have a serious reading disability. You simply cannot process the written language.

Did you sustain any significant head injury as a child or adult?

You asked a question. It was answered. Because you don't like the answer, you claim that the questions was not answered.

There are two possibilities here: The first is like I said, that you have a learning disability. The second is that you are simply a dumbass.

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

 

[expat_panama]

...don't know shit...

--ah, my bad. I forgot to mention the impracticality of trying to work w/ logic systems of unhappy leftists as they become dangerous.

 

[Pop23]

It flew straight into the ground.

You have a serious problem that you need to address. I hate to to tell you again, but you have a serious reading disability. You simply cannot process the written language.

Did you sustain any significant head injury as a child or adult?

You asked a question. It was answered. Because you don't like the answer, you claim that the questions was not answered.

There are two possibilities here: The first is like I said, that you have a learning disability. The second is that you are simply a dumbass.

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

Because those were the terms of membership.

I'm not asking why things are the way they are. I'm asking you to tell me why they should be the way they are.

Because we are a coalition of states. I know what you want, but nothing will make sense to anyone who first does not understand this first.

 

[Pilot1]

So essentially these states have given up their SOVEREIGNTY with regards to electing the President. What happens if THEIR popular vote goes against the overall popular vote? Then their votes are ignored?

Individual states elect the President with their internal popular vote gaining electoral votes. The external popular vote is meaningless in a Presidential election. What will happen if the Democrat candidate loses the popular vote, but wins the Electoral vote. Will that person be President?

 

[Pilot1]

And there goes our CHECKS, and BALANCES folks. The concepts that made our country a great nation are being dismantled.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it's really not. But I'm not surprised that my question flew over your head.

It flew straight into the ground.

You have a serious problem that you need to address. I hate to to tell you again, but you have a serious reading disability. You simply cannot process the written language.

Did you sustain any significant head injury as a child or adult?

You asked a question. It was answered. Because you don't like the answer, you claim that the questions was not answered.

There are two possibilities here: The first is like I said, that you have a learning disability. The second is that you are simply a dumbass.

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

 

[martybegan]

It flew straight into the ground.

You have a serious problem that you need to address. I hate to to tell you again, but you have a serious reading disability. You simply cannot process the written language.

Did you sustain any significant head injury as a child or adult?

You asked a question. It was answered. Because you don't like the answer, you claim that the questions was not answered.

There are two possibilities here: The first is like I said, that you have a learning disability. The second is that you are simply a dumbass.

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

 

[Pogo]

And there goes our CHECKS, and BALANCES folks. The concepts that made our country a great nation are being dismantled.

The "concept" that the country holds what it calls a popular election but then chooses a head of state independent of that election based on an indirect system is practiced in a total of one other "great nation" and that is Pakistan.

As a result we have abysmally low voter turnout (because for most voters there's no point showing up at the ballot box); an entrenched Duopoly that shuts out all competition and perpetuates the Same Old Thing in your choice of two colors; vast swaths of states that will never see a Presidential candidate because one or the other Duopoly candidate can take that state for granted; dependence on polls to determine whether voters of a so-called "battleground state" (a bullshit term that would not exist without the WTA-EC creating it) will in fact get a meaningful vote or not, and even then half of them will have that vote thrown in the trash as if it never happened; and artificial polarization between so-called "red" and "blue" states, another set of concepts that should not and would not exist but for the WTA-EC that forces it to exist.

What a "great" system.

Again it's worth re-noting that James Madison, a principal architect of the Electoral College, could see this coming even in his own time and advocated a Constitutional Amendment that would have prohibited this "great" system.

 

[Pogo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

GOOD--it's about time. There is no need for the electoral college vote today. Everyone can get to polling a precinct and or use mail in ballots. The electoral college was designed for people who couldn't vote because they lived out in the middle of nowhere. So our forefathers decided to do the electoral college system, in essense casting a vote for those people.

And as we saw on election night, any state west of Michigan didn't count, because Trump secured the 270 electoral college vote requirement by a measly 73K accumulated votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states.

Meaning that the Electoral college today is the worst case example of voter disenfranchisement still operational in the nation today.

Incorrect.

There was a bitter debate over whether or not the Constitution made the Federal government too powerful, as well as debate as to whether more populated states would hold more power over less populated states. That is why the Senate has two representatives per state no matter how big the population levels are.

And so it is with the Electoral college. If it were not for the Electoral College, the populations of both New York and California would decide each Presidential election as the rest of the nation would be held captive.

New York and California, combined, have a total of 84 electoral votes. It is impossible to decide a Presidential election with 84 votes Matter of fact you could multiply it by 3 and you still wouldn't have enough.

Ever take a math class? Might be time.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

 

[martybegan]

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If you want it changed, amend the Constitution.

 

[Pogo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

What will happen?

Ever visit Detroit?

I have. I strongly recommend a tour of the Motowm Museum. Especially for racists.

 

[Pogo]

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If that's a virtue, why don't states elect governors that way? Why doesn't each of its counties (parishes, boroughs) have its own electors to pick the governor?

Or Senator? Or Representative? Or Mayor? Or sheriff?

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, It is. Don't like it, change it!

No, it's really not. But I'm not surprised that my question flew over your head.

It flew straight into the ground.

You have a serious problem that you need to address. I hate to to tell you again, but you have a serious reading disability. You simply cannot process the written language.

Did you sustain any significant head injury as a child or adult?

You asked a question. It was answered. Because you don't like the answer, you claim that the questions was not answered.

There are two possibilities here: The first is like I said, that you have a learning disability. The second is that you are simply a dumbass.

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

It is worth almost four times the voter in California