Electoral College

[EvilCat Breath]

It is comforting to know that no matter how liberals feel, the EC will never be eliminated. If it means that much to you, go the civil war route.

Yep. The rest of the country is never going to agree to be ruled by California, New York and Illinois

These idiots actually believe that 30 states or more will vote to disenfranchise themselves to make liberals happy.

 

[eflatminor]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

You clearly do not understand the concept of Federalism.

Off you go collectivist boy.

 

[Pogo]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

You clearly do not understand the concept of Federalism.

Off you go collectivist boy.

And you perhaps do not understand the concept of "a vote".
I want one.

 

[eflatminor]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

You clearly do not understand the concept of Federalism.

Off you go collectivist boy.

And you perhaps do not understand the concept of "a vote".
I want one.

Like I said, ain't gonna happen. States rights matter and you're not going to erode them further.

 

[Pogo]

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

You clearly do not understand the concept of Federalism.

Off you go collectivist boy.

And you perhaps do not understand the concept of "a vote".
I want one.

Like I said, ain't gonna happen. States rights matter and you're not going to erode them further.

I never even brought up "states rights" there George Wallace. Nor do I have any interest in "eroding" anything except the steamroller.

By the way it's "as I said", not "like I said".

 

[Cellblock2429]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

/____ Yeah mob rule. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[yiostheoy]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Why are you still crying about Hillary?

The Negroes did not come out to vote for her in droves like they did for BHO.

The female voters did not like her much either.

Get over it.

 

[eflatminor]

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

You clearly do not understand the concept of Federalism.

Off you go collectivist boy.

And you perhaps do not understand the concept of "a vote".
I want one.

Like I said, ain't gonna happen. States rights matter and you're not going to erode them further.

I never even brought up "states rights" there George Wallace. Nor do I have any interest in "eroding" anything except the steamroller.

By the way it's "as I said", not "like I said".

A grammar nazi, how quaint.

States rights still matter and you're not going to get at the electoral college.

Sucks to be you.

 

[yiostheoy]

I do not want Calif and NYS dictating to the rest of the Nation.

So the electoral college works just fine.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

yes it does the proposition passed with major majority votes. Either you support the popular vote in all things or you are selective only when your side loses.

I don't live in California, Dumbass.

Once again for the slow and stupid either you support majority rules or you don't. You don't get to claim that when your person loses the rules should change while ignoring all the times you supported the Courts or anyone else overruling majority rule. Either you support it or you don't.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

/------ Libs love to change the rule to suit their agenda. Dingy Harry ditched the filibuster rule so Obozo could get his judges through. Now it's still in place and Trump will use it to stack the courts with conservative judges. Nice. Now watch the Dems scream bloody murder.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

yes it does the proposition passed with major majority votes. Either you support the popular vote in all things or you are selective only when your side loses.

Hillary won the popular vote, RGS.

The popular vote means nothing in Presidential elections and it never has.And again if you support Courts overturning the popular vote when it suits you then you actually do not support popular vote and are just butt hurt your guy lost.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is comforting to know that no matter how liberals feel, the EC will never be eliminated. If it means that much to you, go the civil war route.

Why? Congress will remove him if he does not wise up, or SCOTUS will if the Russians are proven to interfere with hacking on his behalf.

And if not, then the courts and Congress will have their way with him, as well as the great majority of Americans and SNL.

It will be fun.

The Russians did not hack the vote and sorry but releasing emails does not invalidate the vote.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Trump lost the PV vote by eleven million votes.

Fact.

The majority of Americans certainly don't want him, and he does done nothing to change their minds.

Fact.

The majority of Americans did not want Hillary either numb nuts.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

yes it does the proposition passed with major majority votes. Either you support the popular vote in all things or you are selective only when your side loses.

I don't live in California, Dumbass.

Once again for the slow and stupid either you support majority rules or you don't. You don't get to claim that when your person loses the rules should change while ignoring all the times you supported the Courts or anyone else overruling majority rule. Either you support it or you don't.

Once again I don't live in California. Don't you get that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

yes it does the proposition passed with major majority votes. Either you support the popular vote in all things or you are selective only when your side loses.

I don't live in California, Dumbass.

Once again for the slow and stupid either you support majority rules or you don't. You don't get to claim that when your person loses the rules should change while ignoring all the times you supported the Courts or anyone else overruling majority rule. Either you support it or you don't.

Once again I don't live in California. Don't you get that?

Once again you either support all cases of Majority rules or you are simply butt hurt your person lost.

 

[Pogo]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

/____ Yeah mob rule. What could possibly go wrong?

Again "mob rule" is what we have now. 48 mobs and four mini-mobs.

See post 16.

 

[Pogo]

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

yes it does the proposition passed with major majority votes. Either you support the popular vote in all things or you are selective only when your side loses.

I don't live in California, Dumbass.

Once again for the slow and stupid either you support majority rules or you don't. You don't get to claim that when your person loses the rules should change while ignoring all the times you supported the Courts or anyone else overruling majority rule. Either you support it or you don't.

Once again I don't live in California. Don't you get that?

Once again you either support all cases of Majority rules or you are simply butt hurt your person lost.

And once again --- FOURTH TIME NOW --- I DON'T LIVE IN FUCKING CALIFORNIA DUMBASS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yes it does the proposition passed with major majority votes. Either you support the popular vote in all things or you are selective only when your side loses.

I don't live in California, Dumbass.

Once again for the slow and stupid either you support majority rules or you don't. You don't get to claim that when your person loses the rules should change while ignoring all the times you supported the Courts or anyone else overruling majority rule. Either you support it or you don't.

Once again I don't live in California. Don't you get that?

Once again you either support all cases of Majority rules or you are simply butt hurt your person lost.

And once again --- FOURTH TIME NOW --- I DON'T LIVE IN FUCKING CALIFORNIA DUMBASS.

Doesn't change the fact you support courts overruling popular vote when it suits you and that is in fact the point.

 

[Pogo]

I don't live in California, Dumbass.

Once again for the slow and stupid either you support majority rules or you don't. You don't get to claim that when your person loses the rules should change while ignoring all the times you supported the Courts or anyone else overruling majority rule. Either you support it or you don't.

Once again I don't live in California. Don't you get that?

Once again you either support all cases of Majority rules or you are simply butt hurt your person lost.

And once again --- FOURTH TIME NOW --- I DON'T LIVE IN FUCKING CALIFORNIA DUMBASS.

Doesn't change the fact you support courts overruling popular vote when it suits you and that is in fact the point.

BULLSHIT. Go find a quote of me saying anything like that, LOSER.