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.
Elizabeth Warren goes to Mississippi and campaigns against the Electoral College. Just let that sink in.
Never underestimate either the pure evil of Elizabeth Warren and the rest of the Democrat field pushing this.........or the stupidity of a Mississippi Democrat voter.
What's your point here?
Point being that if EW had her way there would be no need for any POTUS candidate to ever bother campaigning in MS because the socialist one-party status of California would prevail across the nation. Mississippians should be horrified by her.
You're right, Hillary completely ignored several states who, through the Electoral College, were guaranteed equal representation / importance in a US Presidential Election. Hillary learned the hard way how important they turned out to be. Their voices / votes were not only heard and mattered, they chocked the world and changed the results of a predicted 'landslide' election. THAT is why it is important that EVERY state's, every region of the country's, voices / votes mattering be protected.If the Electoral College is abandoned there will be no need to visit, campaign in, listen to, pay any attention to those smaller states.
So much doublethink. Where does one even start.
Obviously nobody bothers NOW with those Wyomings and Vermonts and Rhode Islands and Utahs, specifically because of the WTA system. Both the red and blue candies know full well that those states are going red/blue/blue/red, therefore there's no reason for EITHER of them to bother, and they don't. One candy knows he'll never get that state and the other knows he has it in the bag.
As for your obsession with "Hillary" she made the fatal ass-umption that she had Wisconsin/Pennsylvania/whatever in the bag, again on that same WTA principle. You get 'em all, or you lose 'em all.
On the other hand if a vote counted proportionally as they in fact happened, would reflect how the state's voters actually voted. My state's 15 EVs for example might have been allocated 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton (or 7/6/2). Nobody here got 50% of the PV, yet Rump got 100% of the EV. Again that's even more out of proportion than the three-fifths compromise of the slavery daze.
So don't be trawling around here trying to sell this snake oil of easily debunked Doublethinkian crapola. It's easily seen through as preposterous hallucination.
Of course, nothing in the Constitution says we have to have a vote at all. It just says the several states shall designate electors, however they choose to do so. But the reality is they all hold elections as if they're data inputs, and then they immediately turn and toss half (or more) of those votes directly into the crapper.
"EQUAL REPRESENTATION" my ASS.
The only reason why Dems are calling for the Electoral College to be eliminated now is because Hillary lost.
IF HILLARY HAD WON WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION / WOULD NOT BE HEARING A DAMN WORD ABOUT HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NEEDED TO BE ABANDONED AT ALL RIGHT NOW!
You can write Speculation Fallacies in GREAT BIG FONTS all you like but all that does is make them BIGGER FALLACIES. Your obsession is noted and dismissed. The history is there and there ain't nuttin' you can do about that. And the fact that you only choose to notice those movements that you think will score you points on a message board is nobody else's problem.
We all know why they started the EC, pony express was slow and only the elites read and voted.
WRONG!
Why the Electoral College
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
Please see new thread, and why its not fair.
The Electoral College is not fair!
We all know why they started the EC, pony express was slow and only the elites read and voted.
WRONG!
Why the Electoral College
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
Please see new thread, and why its not fair.
The Electoral College is not fair!
We all know why they started the EC, pony express was slow and only the elites read and voted.
WRONG!
Why the Electoral College
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
Please see new thread, and why its not fair.
The Electoral College is not fair!
Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.
Areas are represented by the house and Senate.
People do have a voice with a Republic, Democracy not as much. The Electoral College helps for all to have a voice, even minorities. All voices from all over the nation get a voice, it matters not the flavor of the day, it equalizes the might of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.
Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
ma·jor·i·ty 1.the greater number.
mob 1.a large crowd
The intentionally obtuse jackass speaks. The ultimate weasel. He has eyes but know not how to use them.
ALT-MEANING: Spin doctor.
And yet you too have no counterargument. Seems to be a pattern.
Not ONLY do you have no rebuttal, you even edited my quote to remove the inconvenient parts you have no argument against, for which I'll proceed to report you.
No, jackass. Maybe you are that obtuse. I removed the irrelevant bits to MAKE my counter argument plain and obvious, you simply refuse to see it.
[
When the term 'Mob Rule' was coined, it was referring to a mob (larger group, or majority) against the one (the individual). That the majority got their way and outcomes were decided based on populism, not rights.
The Rule Of Law created by our Founders decided that LAWS would decide things so that individuals would be protected from a mob mentality, even the government, and things would be decided through courts and a legal process.
The Electoral College isn't perfect, it has its flaws, but it has been our way since the founding of this country and shall not change as it would require most of the smaller states to go along with it which they will never do as they were the ones who primarily put it in place in the first place so they would have as voice in our federal government.
That Pocahontas Warren comes along now trying to make this a new referendum tells me two things:
A). It is yet just one more diversion from something else the DNC is interested in as she knows she'll never get it.
B). That the democrats are worried they will lose some/many elections increasingly unable to get many of the central states as they increasingly move towards polarization and radicalization as the party of freaks, weirdos, and illegal foreigners! Doing away with the EC would make that rather easy.
Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.People do have a voice with a Republic, Democracy not as much. The Electoral College helps for all to have a voice, even minorities. All voices from all over the nation get a voice, it matters not the flavor of the day, it equalizes the might of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.
Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
You're right, Hillary completely ignored several states who, through the Electoral College, were guaranteed equal representation / importance in a US Presidential Election. Hillary learned the hard way how important they turned out to be. Their voices / votes were not only heard and mattered, they chocked the world and changed the results of a predicted 'landslide' election. THAT is why it is important that EVERY state's, every region of the country's, voices / votes mattering be protected.If the Electoral College is abandoned there will be no need to visit, campaign in, listen to, pay any attention to those smaller states.
So much doublethink. Where does one even start.
Obviously nobody bothers NOW with those Wyomings and Vermonts and Rhode Islands and Utahs, specifically because of the WTA system. Both the red and blue candies know full well that those states are going red/blue/blue/red, therefore there's no reason for EITHER of them to bother, and they don't. One candy knows he'll never get that state and the other knows he has it in the bag.
As for your obsession with "Hillary" she made the fatal ass-umption that she had Wisconsin/Pennsylvania/whatever in the bag, again on that same WTA principle. You get 'em all, or you lose 'em all.
On the other hand if a vote counted proportionally as they in fact happened, would reflect how the state's voters actually voted. My state's 15 EVs for example might have been allocated 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton (or 7/6/2). Nobody here got 50% of the PV, yet Rump got 100% of the EV. Again that's even more out of proportion than the three-fifths compromise of the slavery daze.
So don't be trawling around here trying to sell this snake oil of easily debunked Doublethinkian crapola. It's easily seen through as preposterous hallucination.
Of course, nothing in the Constitution says we have to have a vote at all. It just says the several states shall designate electors, however they choose to do so. But the reality is they all hold elections as if they're data inputs, and then they immediately turn and toss half (or more) of those votes directly into the crapper.
"EQUAL REPRESENTATION" my ASS.
The only reason why Dems are calling for the Electoral College to be eliminated now is because Hillary lost.
IF HILLARY HAD WON WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION / WOULD NOT BE HEARING A DAMN WORD ABOUT HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NEEDED TO BE ABANDONED AT ALL RIGHT NOW!
You can write Speculation Fallacies in GREAT BIG FONTS all you like but all that does is make them BIGGER FALLACIES. Your obsession is noted and dismissed. The history is there and there ain't nuttin' you can do about that. And the fact that you only choose to notice those movements that you think will score you points on a message board is nobody else's problem.
The FACT remains - the ONLY reason we are hearing anything about the need to abandon the Electoral College from the Left / Liberals right now is because HILLARY LOST in 2016. Though you refuse to admit it, you know damn-well this is the case.
Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
What small voice.
Half the country is conservative and the other half is liberal.
Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.People do have a voice with a Republic, Democracy not as much. The Electoral College helps for all to have a voice, even minorities. All voices from all over the nation get a voice, it matters not the flavor of the day, it equalizes the might of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.
Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
No it doesn't, it sends a message to the country that things are not going well and allows both parties to correct their course. If we go to a popular vote system only two states would matter and that would be New York and California, the rest of the country wouldn't matter.
Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
What small voice.
Half the country is conservative and the other half is liberal.
The states with lower population that carry a higher number of electoral college votes than they should based upon that low population.
Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
What small voice.
Half the country is conservative and the other half is liberal.
The states with lower population that carry a higher number of electoral college votes than they should based upon that low population.
Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
What small voice.
Half the country is conservative and the other half is liberal.
The states with lower population that carry a higher number of electoral college votes than they should based upon that low population.
Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
No it doesn't, it sends a message to the country that things are not going well and allows both parties to correct their course. If we go to a popular vote system only two states would matter and that would be New York and California, the rest of the country wouldn't matter.
Incorrect as usual.
At a minimum the electoral college system needs to be updated so that each state gets the appropriate number of votes.
If the State votes for Candidate A but Candidate B wins popular vote nationally then IN fact the Voters of that State are disenfranchised by this law. Which is a violation of the Constitution.I foresee a lot of suits in federal courts in those states that have enacted laws to override the EC. They will reach SCOTUS before the 2020 general election and will be ruled unconstitutional.
which states have enacted laws to override the EC?
Status of National Popular Vote Bill in Each State @ Status of National Popular Vote Bill in Each State
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas - Passed House in 2007 and 2009
Arizona - Passed House in 2016
California - Enacted into law
Colorado - Enacted into law
Connecticut - Enacted into law
District of Columbia - Enacted into law
Delaware - Passed by both houses in 2019; awaiting Governor's signature
Florida
Georgia - Unanimously approved by House committee in 2016
Hawaii - Enacted into law
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois - Enacted into law
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts - Enacted into law
Maryland - Enacted into law
Maine - Passed Maine Senate in 2008
Michigan - Passed House in 2008
Minnesota
Missouri - Unanimously approved by House committee in 2016
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina - Passed Senate in 2007
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey - Enacted into law
New Mexico - Passed by both houses in 2019; awaiting Governor's signature
Nevada - Passed Assembly in 2009
New York - Enacted into law
Ohio
Oklahoma - Passed Senate in 2015
Oregon - Passed House in 2009, 2013, and 2015
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island - Enacted into law
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont - Enacted into law
Washington - Enacted into law
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Does that answer your question?
How does that override the EC? Does not the constitution give the states the right to choose how their EC votes are determined?
No, that's a fact.
Again, the Democrats would not be wasting time on trashing the very mechanism that facilitated Hillary's win right now. Their past and current behavior shows whenever they lose or don't get their way they want to change shit. As long as they win they are happy and it is status quo.
Prove it? Bill Clinton failed to get a 'popularity contest' win yet won with the Electoral College...there was no outrage over the system then BECAUSE HE WON!
ma·jor·i·ty 1.the greater number.
mob 1.a large crowd
The intentionally obtuse jackass speaks. The ultimate weasel. He has eyes but know not how to use them.
ALT-MEANING: Spin doctor.
And yet you too have no counterargument. Seems to be a pattern.
Not ONLY do you have no rebuttal, you even edited my quote to remove the inconvenient parts you have no argument against, for which I'll proceed to report you.
No, jackass. Maybe you are that obtuse. I removed the irrelevant bits to MAKE my counter argument plain and obvious, you simply refuse to see it.
Ummm..... NO Sprinkles, *YOU* removed *MY* content (which is why your post got wiped out) because YOU couldn't handle the point.
That content was, again:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ma·jor·i·ty
/məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun
mob
- 1.
the greater number.
"in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"
synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, major part, best/better part, main part, most, more than half
/mäb/
noun
- 1.
a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.
"a mob of protesters"
synonyms: crowd, horde, multitude, rabble, mass, body, throng
Doesn't look like a pair of "synonyms" to me Fingerboy. Looks like weasel wording.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Those are English language dictionary definitions, they're not going away, and there's nothing you can do about that, stomp your feet and hold you breath 'til you turn blue all you like.
[
When the term 'Mob Rule' was coined, it was referring to a mob (larger group, or majority) against the one (the individual). That the majority got their way and outcomes were decided based on populism, not rights.
The Rule Of Law created by our Founders decided that LAWS would decide things so that individuals would be protected from a mob mentality, even the government, and things would be decided through courts and a legal process.
The Electoral College isn't perfect, it has its flaws, but it has been our way since the founding of this country and shall not change as it would require most of the smaller states to go along with it which they will never do as they were the ones who primarily put it in place in the first place so they would have as voice in our federal government.
That Pocahontas Warren comes along now trying to make this a new referendum tells me two things:
A). It is yet just one more diversion from something else the DNC is interested in as she knows she'll never get it.
B). That the democrats are worried they will lose some/many elections increasingly unable to get many of the central states as they increasingly move towards polarization and radicalization as the party of freaks, weirdos, and illegal foreigners! Doing away with the EC would make that rather easy.
Again for the obsessed ------ nothing in this topic is about "Hillary". This issue has been with us for TWO HUNDRED YEARS. K?
You understand what "two hundred years" means? Or do you need to cut that out of the post too so you can pretend it's not there again?
Hm?
The fact that you have to REMOVE my content rather than address it tells me ONE thing:
View attachment 251201
ma·jor·i·ty 1.the greater number.
mob 1.a large crowd
The intentionally obtuse jackass speaks. The ultimate weasel. He has eyes but know not how to use them.
ALT-MEANING: Spin doctor.
And yet you too have no counterargument. Seems to be a pattern.
Not ONLY do you have no rebuttal, you even edited my quote to remove the inconvenient parts you have no argument against, for which I'll proceed to report you.
No, jackass. Maybe you are that obtuse. I removed the irrelevant bits to MAKE my counter argument plain and obvious, you simply refuse to see it.
Ummm..... NO Sprinkles, *YOU* removed *MY* content (which is why your post got wiped out) because YOU couldn't handle the point.
That content was, again:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ma·jor·i·ty
/məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun
mob
- 1.
the greater number.
"in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"
synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, major part, best/better part, main part, most, more than half
/mäb/
noun
- 1.
a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.
"a mob of protesters"
synonyms: crowd, horde, multitude, rabble, mass, body, throng
Doesn't look like a pair of "synonyms" to me Fingerboy. Looks like weasel wording.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Those are English language dictionary definitions, they're not going away, and there's nothing you can do about that, stomp your feet and hold you breath 'til you turn blue all you like.
[
When the term 'Mob Rule' was coined, it was referring to a mob (larger group, or majority) against the one (the individual). That the majority got their way and outcomes were decided based on populism, not rights.
The Rule Of Law created by our Founders decided that LAWS would decide things so that individuals would be protected from a mob mentality, even the government, and things would be decided through courts and a legal process.
The Electoral College isn't perfect, it has its flaws, but it has been our way since the founding of this country and shall not change as it would require most of the smaller states to go along with it which they will never do as they were the ones who primarily put it in place in the first place so they would have as voice in our federal government.
That Pocahontas Warren comes along now trying to make this a new referendum tells me two things:
A). It is yet just one more diversion from something else the DNC is interested in as she knows she'll never get it.
B). That the democrats are worried they will lose some/many elections increasingly unable to get many of the central states as they increasingly move towards polarization and radicalization as the party of freaks, weirdos, and illegal foreigners! Doing away with the EC would make that rather easy.
Again for the obsessed ------ nothing in this topic is about "Hillary". This issue has been with us for TWO HUNDRED YEARS. K?
You understand what "two hundred years" means? Or do you need to cut that out of the post too so you can pretend it's not there again?
Hm?
The fact that you have to REMOVE my content rather than address it tells me ONE thing:
View attachment 251201
Sorry Little Man, are you just playing stupid or are you actually obtuse? Or are you simply bad very bad loser.
Again, I merely reduced the irrelevancies down to the actual pertinent points of the case as I do in nearly every post to both save server space as well as make it easier for readers to follow: the question is whether mob rule is interchangeable with majority rule in the context of how the Left would eliminate the Electoral College, and it is. Both terms have been used interchangeable for AGES in the parlance of political discussion---- the Left wants mob rule so that their strategically manipulated high-density democratic strongholds in LA Country and NYC can dictate to the whole nation who gets put into the White House.
View attachment 251213
View attachment 251214
The only difference being that in the majority, the minority acquiesce peacefully to the majority's power whereas typically in mob rule, they do not and succumb to their force and violence. Therefore, they achieve EXACTLY the same ends through EXACTLY the same means, the only difference being to what degree they use force in order to achieve it! (determined by the degree of resistance put up by their opposition).
NO, a "fact" can be proven. This CANNOT.
