Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Subversion of the US Constitution and its defined means of electing our president is an act of treason against the United States. The compac will be held unconstitutional as it subverts the intent of each area having an equal vote. This keeps population centers from becoming dictatorial to the rest of the US. We have never been a popular vote democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
If they do this each states governor needs to be removed from power and kept from ever holding office again..
It would appear you need to actually read the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth about what "su
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?
Prior to the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings, they could have, but most didn't.
You deflected the question instead of confronting it. Don't think you're gonna get away with it.
The question was on the MERITS of that indirect process, not what "could have" happened. Once again the question is, if it's a virtue, why don't we use it electing a governor as we do electing a president? Same process either way, yet somehow you'd have us believe it's worthwhile on one level yet not on another. And that's a Double Standard.
Again --- *IS* it a legitimate system, or IS IT NOT? If said system is ideal to pick a leader of a diverse nation, why isn't the same system ideal to pick the leader of a diverse state? Having it both ways is not a choice here. Pick one.
They did it at the federal level because they were afraid of an overbearing federal government controlled by 2-3 large States.
Well we now have the overbearing federal government, and people like you want it controlled by 2-3 large States, so it appears they were correct in their worries.
I already did that math above and disproved the canard, put it in the oven, roasted it and had it for lunch, so this fantasy point was already shot down before it took off.
1st:
Please respond to my posts individually. I take the time to respond to each person in kind, and expect the same consideration.
2nd:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
The concept is not done at the State level because States are in theory small enough to not need the levelling of the field one wants at the federal level.
One could argue that counties in States could benefit from a similar system, but remember a person's other citizenship besides US citizenship is to a State itself, not a county.
Local control of counties flows DOWN from the State Legislatures, not UP from the people. A person's sovereignty transfers to the State via the State's legislature, not through their local sub-division.
You just make it up as you go along!
But as you said:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
If you really felt that candidates should appeal to the broader public instead of a select few, you would what the electoral college abolished and the President elected by the popular majority.
As of now, candidates only campaign in the 'battleground' states while the majority of states get ignored. Abolishing the electoral college would force the candidates to campaign every where.
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.
We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.
So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.
We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.
No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.
They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.
The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.
The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.
The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.
So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?
Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.
That article only applies to the States. The constitution itself sets up the Republican nature of the federal government.
The courts are usually the first thing to go in a dictatorship, so your point doesn't make sense.
Also, how many divisions do the courts have?
The EC was designed to create a method of doing the presidential election by State, weighted for population.
And if the EC decided not to elect Trump for purely political reasons, you would probably have had a revolution.
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.
We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.
So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.
We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.
No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.
They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.
The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.
The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.
The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.
So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?
Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.
That article only applies to the States. The constitution itself sets up the Republican nature of the federal government.
The courts are usually the first thing to go in a dictatorship, so your point doesn't make sense.
Also, how many divisions do the courts have?
The EC was designed to create a method of doing the presidential election by State, weighted for population.
And if the EC decided not to elect Trump for purely political reasons, you would probably have had a revolution.
So your saying that Trump supporters would have not respected the electoral college if they had not elected Trump, but since they did now your defending the electoral college?
Talk about blatant hypocrisy!
That's like saying that the Democratic states will allocate their electors to whoever wins the popular majority as long as that person is a Democrats, but not if they are a Republican.
Fortunately, Democrats do not practice the gross and blatant hypocrisy that Republicans do.
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.
We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.
So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.
We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.
No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.
They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.
The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.
The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.
The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.
So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?
Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.
Subversion of the US Constitution and its defined means of electing our president is an act of treason against the United States. The compac will be held unconstitutional as it subverts the intent of each area having an equal vote. This keeps population centers from becoming dictatorial to the rest of the US. We have never been a popular vote democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
If they do this each states governor needs to be removed from power and kept from ever holding office again..
It would appear you need to actually read the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth about what "su
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?
Prior to the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings, they could have, but most didn't.
You deflected the question instead of confronting it. Don't think you're gonna get away with it.
The question was on the MERITS of that indirect process, not what "could have" happened. Once again the question is, if it's a virtue, why don't we use it electing a governor as we do electing a president? Same process either way, yet somehow you'd have us believe it's worthwhile on one level yet not on another. And that's a Double Standard.
Again --- *IS* it a legitimate system, or IS IT NOT? If said system is ideal to pick a leader of a diverse nation, why isn't the same system ideal to pick the leader of a diverse state? Having it both ways is not a choice here. Pick one.
They did it at the federal level because they were afraid of an overbearing federal government controlled by 2-3 large States.
Well we now have the overbearing federal government, and people like you want it controlled by 2-3 large States, so it appears they were correct in their worries.
I already did that math above and disproved the canard, put it in the oven, roasted it and had it for lunch, so this fantasy point was already shot down before it took off.
1st:
Please respond to my posts individually. I take the time to respond to each person in kind, and expect the same consideration.
2nd:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
The concept is not done at the State level because States are in theory small enough to not need the levelling of the field one wants at the federal level.
One could argue that counties in States could benefit from a similar system, but remember a person's other citizenship besides US citizenship is to a State itself, not a county.
Local control of counties flows DOWN from the State Legislatures, not UP from the people. A person's sovereignty transfers to the State via the State's legislature, not through their local sub-division.
You just make it up as you go along!
But as you said:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
If you really felt that candidates should appeal to the broader public instead of a select few, you would what the electoral college abolished and the President elected by the popular majority.
As of now, candidates only campaign in the 'battleground' states while the majority of states get ignored. Abolishing the electoral college would force the candidates to campaign every where.
You really are all over the place. If the EC is abolished the candidates will just stick to high population areas.
And all your butthurt is over the EC doing what it was designed to do, make the presidential election about the States.
Trump won, deal with it you whiny progressive snot.
We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.
So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.
We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.
No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.
They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.
The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.
The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.
The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.
So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?
Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.
That article only applies to the States. The constitution itself sets up the Republican nature of the federal government.
The courts are usually the first thing to go in a dictatorship, so your point doesn't make sense.
Also, how many divisions do the courts have?
The EC was designed to create a method of doing the presidential election by State, weighted for population.
And if the EC decided not to elect Trump for purely political reasons, you would probably have had a revolution.
So your saying that Trump supporters would have not respected the electoral college if they had not elected Trump, but since they did now your defending the electoral college?
Talk about blatant hypocrisy!
That's like saying that the Democratic states will allocate their electors to whoever wins the popular majority as long as that person is a Democrats, but not if they are a Republican.
Fortunately, Democrats do not practice the gross and blatant hypocrisy that Republicans do.
What hypocrisy?
What is your fucking point anyway goober?
If somehow the EC voted for someone other than Trump despite him winning the most electors bad things would have happened.
The state must represent their constituency. They can proportionality distribute their college votes by the populace within their state or they can give them all to the winner of the popular vote WITHIN THEIR STATE, but they can not give their votes away due to voting in other states.. This violates FEC rules..
And if i was a voter in one of those states they would find themselves in court defending that disenfranchisement of my right to vote.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. If Trump wins 60% of the popular vote in state XYZ, that state cannot say that Hillary won the national popular vote (which is a meaningless, non-binding statistic only with no legal value), by 2%, so they are giving Trump's 60% state win over to Hillary. That violates every election law in the books.
For the Dems to even suggest such a thing is the hare-brained fascist power-grab to end all hare-brained fascist power grabs and will be challenged and defeated in the Supreme Court.
The states involved would be changing their laws regarding how they seat electors. In that case, what law would be violated, specifically?
Well, if it contradicts the results in the state, it would amount to disenfranchising their voters. I'm gonna say any number of people could make a convincing case that that's illegal.
As I read it, if a state is going to go through the charade of a popular vote purportedly to select Electors, then every state that apportions any of its electors contrary to a significant portion of those votes --- as they all do with the WTA system --- is in so doing disenfranchising that portion of its voters. And as already noted, that's already been going on longer than any of us have been alive. If a case can be made that that is in fact illegal, then I wish somebody would make it, yesterday. James Madison would agree, and already did.
It is not a "charade", nor is it "disenfranchising", that every election has a winner and a loser. That is nonsensical on the face of it. How in the hell would you make it illegal for elections to produce one winner, even assuming you wanted such an asinine and impossible thing?
I don't recall James Madison EVER suggesting that we should somehow invent elections with no winners.
What IS a charade is to say, "No matter who wins in this state, we're going to give our Electoral votes to the winner of all the other states!" THAT is disenfranchising every voter who isn't a resident of California, New York, or Texas, basically.
The fact that there are people who are honestly bewildered about what our system does, how it does it, and why just goes to show how utterly ignorant our population has become.
"Winner take all" states are not my preference, but are still far more inclusive of all citizens voting and participating than any pretense that a "national popular vote" could make at it.
I won't say you're definitely wrong about how out-of-touch people have become, but I do think this is going to be egregious enough to wake a lot of idiots up, when push comes to shove. And I think it will be idiots on BOTH sides of the aisle.
Oh, it's an end-run around the Constitution, and the fact that the left is screaming, "TECHNICALLY, it's okay! We can get away with it!" doesn't change the fact that this is a deliberate, malicious attempt to twist and pervert the letter of the law in order to attack the intent of the law.
And yes, I know that the US Constitution doesn't specify a vote of the people, but I don't think that's because the Founding Fathers considered the votes of individuals in regards to the President to be irrelevant or unimportant; I think they just believed that the question would be addressed at the state level, which is where they thought the will of the individual people would be strongest and most valued. I don't think they expected us to become so spoiled and apathetic and divorced from the concept of sovereign states that we would allow things to come to this pass.
Subversion of the US Constitution and its defined means of electing our president is an act of treason against the United States. The compac will be held unconstitutional as it subverts the intent of each area having an equal vote. This keeps population centers from becoming dictatorial to the rest of the US. We have never been a popular vote democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
If they do this each states governor needs to be removed from power and kept from ever holding office again..
It would appear you need to actually read the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth about what "su
Prior to the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings, they could have, but most didn't.
You deflected the question instead of confronting it. Don't think you're gonna get away with it.
The question was on the MERITS of that indirect process, not what "could have" happened. Once again the question is, if it's a virtue, why don't we use it electing a governor as we do electing a president? Same process either way, yet somehow you'd have us believe it's worthwhile on one level yet not on another. And that's a Double Standard.
Again --- *IS* it a legitimate system, or IS IT NOT? If said system is ideal to pick a leader of a diverse nation, why isn't the same system ideal to pick the leader of a diverse state? Having it both ways is not a choice here. Pick one.
They did it at the federal level because they were afraid of an overbearing federal government controlled by 2-3 large States.
Well we now have the overbearing federal government, and people like you want it controlled by 2-3 large States, so it appears they were correct in their worries.
I already did that math above and disproved the canard, put it in the oven, roasted it and had it for lunch, so this fantasy point was already shot down before it took off.
1st:
Please respond to my posts individually. I take the time to respond to each person in kind, and expect the same consideration.
2nd:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
The concept is not done at the State level because States are in theory small enough to not need the levelling of the field one wants at the federal level.
One could argue that counties in States could benefit from a similar system, but remember a person's other citizenship besides US citizenship is to a State itself, not a county.
Local control of counties flows DOWN from the State Legislatures, not UP from the people. A person's sovereignty transfers to the State via the State's legislature, not through their local sub-division.
You just make it up as you go along!
But as you said:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
If you really felt that candidates should appeal to the broader public instead of a select few, you would what the electoral college abolished and the President elected by the popular majority.
As of now, candidates only campaign in the 'battleground' states while the majority of states get ignored. Abolishing the electoral college would force the candidates to campaign every where.
You really are all over the place. If the EC is abolished the candidates will just stick to high population areas.
And all your butthurt is over the EC doing what it was designed to do, make the presidential election about the States.
Trump won, deal with it you whiny progressive snot.
I understand. Your losing this argument so you're getting nasty. Try to control the childish comments please.
Any candidate that ignored the 'Low Population' areas would be doomed to losing the election.
The fact is that 'Low Population' areas are 'Low Population density', that is they have a small number of people per square mile. However, the number of square miles that can be considered 'low population' is huge as compared with the 'high population' areas. So the TOTAL popluation of the 'low population' areas is roughly equivalent to the TOTAL population of the 'high population' areas.
There is a balance between the two, and any candidate that ignored 'low population' area would more than likely lose the election.
No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.
They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.
The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.
The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.
The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.
So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?
Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.
That article only applies to the States. The constitution itself sets up the Republican nature of the federal government.
The courts are usually the first thing to go in a dictatorship, so your point doesn't make sense.
Also, how many divisions do the courts have?
The EC was designed to create a method of doing the presidential election by State, weighted for population.
And if the EC decided not to elect Trump for purely political reasons, you would probably have had a revolution.
So your saying that Trump supporters would have not respected the electoral college if they had not elected Trump, but since they did now your defending the electoral college?
Talk about blatant hypocrisy!
That's like saying that the Democratic states will allocate their electors to whoever wins the popular majority as long as that person is a Democrats, but not if they are a Republican.
Fortunately, Democrats do not practice the gross and blatant hypocrisy that Republicans do.
What hypocrisy?
What is your fucking point anyway goober?
If somehow the EC voted for someone other than Trump despite him winning the most electors bad things would have happened.
If you can't comprehend my point, you're not worth discussing this with.
Your statement that Trump supporters only respect the electoral college when it's to their benefit shows blatant hypocrisy!
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.
We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.
So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.
We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.
No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.
They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.
The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.
The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.
The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.
So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?
Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.
Lmfao... talk about the most retarded post on the internet about the EC...
Of course the EC was set up to prevent mob rule you retard...where the hell you go to school at?
It would appear you need to actually read the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth about what "su
You deflected the question instead of confronting it. Don't think you're gonna get away with it.
The question was on the MERITS of that indirect process, not what "could have" happened. Once again the question is, if it's a virtue, why don't we use it electing a governor as we do electing a president? Same process either way, yet somehow you'd have us believe it's worthwhile on one level yet not on another. And that's a Double Standard.
Again --- *IS* it a legitimate system, or IS IT NOT? If said system is ideal to pick a leader of a diverse nation, why isn't the same system ideal to pick the leader of a diverse state? Having it both ways is not a choice here. Pick one.
I already did that math above and disproved the canard, put it in the oven, roasted it and had it for lunch, so this fantasy point was already shot down before it took off.
1st:
Please respond to my posts individually. I take the time to respond to each person in kind, and expect the same consideration.
2nd:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
The concept is not done at the State level because States are in theory small enough to not need the levelling of the field one wants at the federal level.
One could argue that counties in States could benefit from a similar system, but remember a person's other citizenship besides US citizenship is to a State itself, not a county.
Local control of counties flows DOWN from the State Legislatures, not UP from the people. A person's sovereignty transfers to the State via the State's legislature, not through their local sub-division.
You just make it up as you go along!
But as you said:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
If you really felt that candidates should appeal to the broader public instead of a select few, you would what the electoral college abolished and the President elected by the popular majority.
As of now, candidates only campaign in the 'battleground' states while the majority of states get ignored. Abolishing the electoral college would force the candidates to campaign every where.
You really are all over the place. If the EC is abolished the candidates will just stick to high population areas.
And all your butthurt is over the EC doing what it was designed to do, make the presidential election about the States.
Trump won, deal with it you whiny progressive snot.
I understand. Your losing this argument so you're getting nasty. Try to control the childish comments please.
Any candidate that ignored the 'Low Population' areas would be doomed to losing the election.
The fact is that 'Low Population' areas are 'Low Population density', that is they have a small number of people per square mile. However, the number of square miles that can be considered 'low population' is huge as compared with the 'high population' areas. So the TOTAL popluation of the 'low population' areas is roughly equivalent to the TOTAL population of the 'high population' areas.
There is a balance between the two, and any candidate that ignored 'low population' area would more than likely lose the election.
You aren't actually arguing anything.
Your point is nothing but jibberish.
Also, fuck off.
The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.
The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.
The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.
So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?
Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.
That article only applies to the States. The constitution itself sets up the Republican nature of the federal government.
The courts are usually the first thing to go in a dictatorship, so your point doesn't make sense.
Also, how many divisions do the courts have?
The EC was designed to create a method of doing the presidential election by State, weighted for population.
And if the EC decided not to elect Trump for purely political reasons, you would probably have had a revolution.
So your saying that Trump supporters would have not respected the electoral college if they had not elected Trump, but since they did now your defending the electoral college?
Talk about blatant hypocrisy!
That's like saying that the Democratic states will allocate their electors to whoever wins the popular majority as long as that person is a Democrats, but not if they are a Republican.
Fortunately, Democrats do not practice the gross and blatant hypocrisy that Republicans do.
What hypocrisy?
What is your fucking point anyway goober?
If somehow the EC voted for someone other than Trump despite him winning the most electors bad things would have happened.
If you can't comprehend my point, you're not worth discussing this with.
Your statement that Trump supporters only respect the electoral college when it's to their benefit shows blatant hypocrisy!
What I was saying is if the EC decided to award the election to someone other than Trump, after his electors had won, people would probably take to the streets.
You say the EC should have done that, or at least you are alluding to it, as part of your "the EC is there to prevent Satan from becoming president" concept.
Try to keep up, goober.
1st:
Please respond to my posts individually. I take the time to respond to each person in kind, and expect the same consideration.
2nd:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
The concept is not done at the State level because States are in theory small enough to not need the levelling of the field one wants at the federal level.
One could argue that counties in States could benefit from a similar system, but remember a person's other citizenship besides US citizenship is to a State itself, not a county.
Local control of counties flows DOWN from the State Legislatures, not UP from the people. A person's sovereignty transfers to the State via the State's legislature, not through their local sub-division.
You just make it up as you go along!
But as you said:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
If you really felt that candidates should appeal to the broader public instead of a select few, you would what the electoral college abolished and the President elected by the popular majority.
As of now, candidates only campaign in the 'battleground' states while the majority of states get ignored. Abolishing the electoral college would force the candidates to campaign every where.
You really are all over the place. If the EC is abolished the candidates will just stick to high population areas.
And all your butthurt is over the EC doing what it was designed to do, make the presidential election about the States.
Trump won, deal with it you whiny progressive snot.
I understand. Your losing this argument so you're getting nasty. Try to control the childish comments please.
Any candidate that ignored the 'Low Population' areas would be doomed to losing the election.
The fact is that 'Low Population' areas are 'Low Population density', that is they have a small number of people per square mile. However, the number of square miles that can be considered 'low population' is huge as compared with the 'high population' areas. So the TOTAL popluation of the 'low population' areas is roughly equivalent to the TOTAL population of the 'high population' areas.
There is a balance between the two, and any candidate that ignored 'low population' area would more than likely lose the election.
You aren't actually arguing anything.
Your point is nothing but jibberish.
Also, fuck off.
You obviously do not understand most of your own statements, much less mine.
You've lost the debate - so you're getting nasty. How childish!
You're a typical example of mob mentality!
I have to get back to work now.
MartyBegan - try to think before you post please!
That article only applies to the States. The constitution itself sets up the Republican nature of the federal government.
The courts are usually the first thing to go in a dictatorship, so your point doesn't make sense.
Also, how many divisions do the courts have?
The EC was designed to create a method of doing the presidential election by State, weighted for population.
And if the EC decided not to elect Trump for purely political reasons, you would probably have had a revolution.
So your saying that Trump supporters would have not respected the electoral college if they had not elected Trump, but since they did now your defending the electoral college?
Talk about blatant hypocrisy!
That's like saying that the Democratic states will allocate their electors to whoever wins the popular majority as long as that person is a Democrats, but not if they are a Republican.
Fortunately, Democrats do not practice the gross and blatant hypocrisy that Republicans do.
What hypocrisy?
What is your fucking point anyway goober?
If somehow the EC voted for someone other than Trump despite him winning the most electors bad things would have happened.
If you can't comprehend my point, you're not worth discussing this with.
Your statement that Trump supporters only respect the electoral college when it's to their benefit shows blatant hypocrisy!
What I was saying is if the EC decided to award the election to someone other than Trump, after his electors had won, people would probably take to the streets.
You say the EC should have done that, or at least you are alluding to it, as part of your "the EC is there to prevent Satan from becoming president" concept.
Try to keep up, goober.
So your saying that if Trump's supporters did not agree with the EC, they would 'take to the streets'?
Talk about mob mentality!
This will make visiting these states a waste of time on the campaign trail since their votes won’t count in winning electoral votes because of it being tied to a general election national count. Also, looking back on history this law would not have the Electoral College results in the last five Presidential elections except in 2004 where Bush would have won by a larger electoral count.
Good law for liberal states to adopt.
They already only visit swing stares. Only Donald spends all of his time with the radical wingnut “base”
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 live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Pure Democracy is MOB RULE. Do you want a few states to decide for the entire country? That is now what has made this county successful.
The Federal government exists due to the STATES which were supposed to be stronger than the Feds, and thus States elect Presidents, not people. Take some History, and Civics courses, and read the Constitution.
Have you ever heard of the American Civil War? The issue of whether we are 50 sovereign states in a federation, or one nation with 50 devolved states was definitely settled at that time.
The articles of Confederation failed and did the Confederacy.
Your argument is just a weak camouflage to justify domination of a minority.
Besides which, the worst sort of MOB rule we can have is the rule of the DUMB-ASS REDNECKS in the low population states. This has been proven by the election of a New York City/Wall St. con man. How stupid can the people in these low population states get?
When We The People wrote the constitution, they set it up this way for a purpose
They set the choosing of Electors this way.
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct....."
Now show me where in the Constitution it says the states are forbidden to base the selection of their electors on the total vote of all the states!
It's called " in the spirit of the law" typical liberal criminals always trying to find a loop hole
