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.
I just want to say, you'd better watch out America, when disrespectful motormouths using the F-word on the current President go all out to shove their disrespectful ways down the throats of a free people, and they smugly ignore a killing spree by their own partisan murderers who go after representatives of the opposing party with weapons of war that disabled a Congressman like Scalise less than 2 years ago. You better watch out for those precinct chairmen who scream "disenfranchisement" while losing votes, then producing more votes than the headcount of people going into and out of the polls that were allegedly "lost" and just happen to furnish enough votes when found to oust the person who won the election before the "found" votes erased the victory just a day or two after the final count was known.
JoeB131 believes the best system is one where a race can fuck it’s way to the top through fertility. He’s a smart dude...just ask him.
Yes, they are having children in some plot, not because they actually love their children.
And that too is complete bull shit. I have relatives in Illinois so I’m VERY familiar with the state. For instance I know that Lake County in sparsely populated, since I visit my wife’s brother there. He lives in Wauconda. The rest of her family live just north of Springfield.
Lake is the third most populous county in IL, after Cook and DuPage.
Illinois Counties by Population
In fact, those three counties make up more than half the population of IL, nearly 7 million people. But dumb idiots of you will look at a county map and see mostly red uninhabited counties and say, "See how unfair the Popular Vote is?"
Is that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.I am well aware of the fact that the founders were distrustful of the whims of the voters. So am I. But the EC is not a solution since the electors in each state are selected by the voters. The EC only distorts the outcome. Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship or a monarchy?Yes I do, and therefore it was the EC that negated to votes of the majority. Keeping the EC is what disenfranchise voters. Can you process that?
Nor is this something the founders did by accident.
It was deliberate that voters originally did not vote for candidates directly, but for electors instead.
That is because the average person can not be trusted to vote properly, and instead is easily misled by hysteria and propaganda,
For example, slavery was popular before the Civil War, and so was the invasion of Iraq, even though the people were proven 100% wrong about WMD.
It is not a question of votes being worth more or less in the electoral college, but that individuals are mob rule and not a good idea.
The electors were from the state assemblies, and were supposed to be the most informed and prevent popular disasters.
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
LolIs that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.I am well aware of the fact that the founders were distrustful of the whims of the voters. So am I. But the EC is not a solution since the electors in each state are selected by the voters. The EC only distorts the outcome. Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship or a monarchy?Nor is this something the founders did by accident.
It was deliberate that voters originally did not vote for candidates directly, but for electors instead.
That is because the average person can not be trusted to vote properly, and instead is easily misled by hysteria and propaganda,
For example, slavery was popular before the Civil War, and so was the invasion of Iraq, even though the people were proven 100% wrong about WMD.
It is not a question of votes being worth more or less in the electoral college, but that individuals are mob rule and not a good idea.
The electors were from the state assemblies, and were supposed to be the most informed and prevent popular disasters.
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
Wrong. You're not getting it. You're not understanding the concept of Sovereign States. Each state is a separate government. When you understand that concept, itll all make sense.Is that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.I am well aware of the fact that the founders were distrustful of the whims of the voters. So am I. But the EC is not a solution since the electors in each state are selected by the voters. The EC only distorts the outcome. Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship or a monarchy?Nor is this something the founders did by accident.
It was deliberate that voters originally did not vote for candidates directly, but for electors instead.
That is because the average person can not be trusted to vote properly, and instead is easily misled by hysteria and propaganda,
For example, slavery was popular before the Civil War, and so was the invasion of Iraq, even though the people were proven 100% wrong about WMD.
It is not a question of votes being worth more or less in the electoral college, but that individuals are mob rule and not a good idea.
The electors were from the state assemblies, and were supposed to be the most informed and prevent popular disasters.
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
My computer has been giving me problems at this thread, both with the pointer jumping around out of control and with replacing my answer with the wrong set of reply posters. My apologies.Does this mean you're giving up on destroying the Electoral College that gives the citizens of these small but contributive states two senators apiece? .Lol
Well I would say let Wyoming Montana North Dakota and South Dakota continue with what they’re doing… It’s none of the federal governments business.
I could not agree more!
I cannot decide if people like you are just stupid or really dishonest...or maybe both.
I say a dozen times I am not for getting rid of the EC and then you ask me if I am giving up on destroying it. I just do not understand what is wrong with people like you that do this all the time.
Oh, and the EC does not give states two Senators, that would be the Constitution.
The fact that you have to call me a moron tells me that you're not too damned sure of yourself. You've got it exactly backwards. Of course their votes would make a difference -everyone's vote would make a difference- unlike now where if you reside in a solidly red or blue state and support the opposite side- you know before you vote that it won't matter. That is part of the reason why we have low voter turnout. Oh I forgot- you rightwingers love a low voter turnoutLolIs that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.I am well aware of the fact that the founders were distrustful of the whims of the voters. So am I. But the EC is not a solution since the electors in each state are selected by the voters. The EC only distorts the outcome. Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship or a monarchy?
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
With a pure popular vote, states like Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho etc might as well not even vote... Their votes would not make any difference whatsoever it be a fucking waste of time so shut the fuck up you fucking moron
Sovereign States? Oh I most certainly do get it. You think that we are still operating under the Articles of Confederation!!Wrong. You're not getting it. You're not understanding the concept of Sovereign States. Each state is a separate government. When you understand that concept, itll all make sense.Is that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.I am well aware of the fact that the founders were distrustful of the whims of the voters. So am I. But the EC is not a solution since the electors in each state are selected by the voters. The EC only distorts the outcome. Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship or a monarchy?
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
... you rightwingers love a low voter turnout
Oh my God. Each state is Sovereign. Are you denying that?Sovereign States? Oh I most certainly do get it. You think that we are still operating under the Articles of Confederation!!Wrong. You're not getting it. You're not understanding the concept of Sovereign States. Each state is a separate government. When you understand that concept, itll all make sense.Is that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
The idea that the EC gives smaller states an equal voice defies logic since that have fewer EC votes. To be more direct- it is fucking stupid. Having said that, why is it more important that "the state " has a equal voice as opposed to each and every individual? Aren't you conservative cranks against government and for the individual? Individual responsibility? Oh right. Only when it suits you .LolIs that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.I am well aware of the fact that the founders were distrustful of the whims of the voters. So am I. But the EC is not a solution since the electors in each state are selected by the voters. The EC only distorts the outcome. Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship or a monarchy?
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
With a pure popular vote, states like Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho etc might as well not even vote... Their votes would not make any difference whatsoever it be a fucking waste of time so shut the fuck up you fucking moron
Oh my god! You do not understand the meaning of Sovereignty !!Oh my God. Each state is Sovereign. Are you denying that?Sovereign States? Oh I most certainly do get it. You think that we are still operating under the Articles of Confederation!!Wrong. You're not getting it. You're not understanding the concept of Sovereign States. Each state is a separate government. When you understand that concept, itll all make sense.Is that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
Each state has a Constitution. Governor. State representatives. They are nations. We are not a democracy. You're still not getting it.Oh my god! You do not understand the meaning of Sovereignty !!Oh my God. Each state is Sovereign. Are you denying that?Sovereign States? Oh I most certainly do get it. You think that we are still operating under the Articles of Confederation!!Wrong. You're not getting it. You're not understanding the concept of Sovereign States. Each state is a separate government. When you understand that concept, itll all make sense.Is that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?
Definition of SOVEREIGN
It appears that you view the US as a collection of Baltic type states and reject the concept of federal supremacy. Your problem . Not mine
I asked before and I will ask again until I get a reasonable answer. Why is it more important for the "state " to have an equal voice as opposed to each and every individual? Also- just how does the EC make states equal? Take your time
A pure popular vote will never be representative of low population states... everThe fact that you have to call me a moron tells me that you're not too damned sure of yourself. You've got it exactly backwards. Of course their votes would make a difference -everyone's vote would make a difference- unlike now where if you reside in a solidly red or blue state and support the opposite side- you know before you vote that it won't matter. That is part of the reason why we have low voter turnout. Oh I forgot- you rightwingers love a low voter turnoutLolIs that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
With a pure popular vote, states like Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho etc might as well not even vote... Their votes would not make any difference whatsoever it be a fucking waste of time so shut the fuck up you fucking moron
LolThe idea that the EC gives smaller states an equal voice defies logic since that have fewer EC votes. To be more direct- it is fucking stupid. Having said that, why is it more important that "the state " has a equal voice as opposed to each and every individual? Aren't you conservative cranks against government and for the individual? Individual responsibility? Oh right. Only when it suits you .LolIs that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
With a pure popular vote, states like Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho etc might as well not even vote... Their votes would not make any difference whatsoever it be a fucking waste of time so shut the fuck up you fucking moron
Exactly, and that's why the socialists want to eliminate the EC. They're devious socialists and commies, and all they are about is taking control of this country out of the hands of the hard working patriots.LolThe idea that the EC gives smaller states an equal voice defies logic since that have fewer EC votes. To be more direct- it is fucking stupid. Having said that, why is it more important that "the state " has a equal voice as opposed to each and every individual? Aren't you conservative cranks against government and for the individual? Individual responsibility? Oh right. Only when it suits you .LolIs that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
With a pure popular vote, states like Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho etc might as well not even vote... Their votes would not make any difference whatsoever it be a fucking waste of time so shut the fuck up you fucking moron
With pure popular vote, a city like Minneapolis could overrule five states in the northern plains.
The electoral college is the only protection small states have against overbearing control freak urban areas
They are nations? Holy fucking shit! I am getting it. What I am getting is that you do not believe in the United States of America or the Constitution. And you're idiotically clinging to the idea that the EC gives all states equal voice in selecting the president.Each state has a Constitution. Governor. State representatives. They are nations. We are not a democracy. You're still not getting it.Oh my god! You do not understand the meaning of Sovereignty !!Oh my God. Each state is Sovereign. Are you denying that?Sovereign States? Oh I most certainly do get it. You think that we are still operating under the Articles of Confederation!!Wrong. You're not getting it. You're not understanding the concept of Sovereign States. Each state is a separate government. When you understand that concept, itll all make sense.Is that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.
Definition of SOVEREIGN
It appears that you view the US as a collection of Baltic type states and reject the concept of federal supremacy. Your problem . Not mine
I asked before and I will ask again until I get a reasonable answer. Why is it more important for the "state " to have an equal voice as opposed to each and every individual? Also- just how does the EC make states equal? Take your time
Neither is the EC Bubba. Not one of you has been able to explain how that worksA pure popular vote will never be representative of low population states... everThe fact that you have to call me a moron tells me that you're not too damned sure of yourself. You've got it exactly backwards. Of course their votes would make a difference -everyone's vote would make a difference- unlike now where if you reside in a solidly red or blue state and support the opposite side- you know before you vote that it won't matter. That is part of the reason why we have low voter turnout. Oh I forgot- you rightwingers love a low voter turnoutLolIs that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
With a pure popular vote, states like Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho etc might as well not even vote... Their votes would not make any difference whatsoever it be a fucking waste of time so shut the fuck up you fucking moron
LolThe idea that the EC gives smaller states an equal voice defies logic since that have fewer EC votes. To be more direct- it is fucking stupid. Having said that, why is it more important that "the state " has a equal voice as opposed to each and every individual? Aren't you conservative cranks against government and for the individual? Individual responsibility? Oh right. Only when it suits you .LolIs that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.
How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.
With a pure popular vote, states like Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho etc might as well not even vote... Their votes would not make any difference whatsoever it be a fucking waste of time so shut the fuck up you fucking moron
With pure popular vote, a city like Minneapolis could overrule five states in the northern plains.
The electoral college is the only protection small states have against overbearing control freak urban areas
That is exactly what you right wing fascists want to do.Exactly, and that's why the socialists want to eliminate the EC. They're devious socialists and commies, and all they are about is taking control of this country out of the hands of the hard working patriots.LolThe idea that the EC gives smaller states an equal voice defies logic since that have fewer EC votes. To be more direct- it is fucking stupid. Having said that, why is it more important that "the state " has a equal voice as opposed to each and every individual? Aren't you conservative cranks against government and for the individual? Individual responsibility? Oh right. Only when it suits you .LolIs that supposed to be an answer? You're STILL not making any sense. The EC does not give the smaller states an equal voice in selecting the president so that is just a non sequitur logical fallacy-in other words bullshit. The only way to ensure that everyone's voice is heard equally is to adapt the popular vote.We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?
With a pure popular vote, states like Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho etc might as well not even vote... Their votes would not make any difference whatsoever it be a fucking waste of time so shut the fuck up you fucking moron
With pure popular vote, a city like Minneapolis could overrule five states in the northern plains.
The electoral college is the only protection small states have against overbearing control freak urban areas
