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.
NO, a "fact" can be proven. This CANNOT.
It WAS proven.
I said if Democrats win they move on and don't give a damn about the Electoral College, that the only reason we are hearing about it now is because a Democrat lost.
Bill, a Democrat, did not get the 'popular vote' majority win but won the Electoral College and the Presidency. NO TANTRUM.
Hillary, a Democrat, won the 'popular vote' but lost the Electoral College and Presidency. TANTRUM.
PROVEN!
Next.....
NO, a "fact" can be proven. This CANNOT.
It WAS proven.
I said if Democrats win they move on and don't give a damn about the Electoral College, that the only reason we are hearing about it now is because a Democrat lost.
Bill, a Democrat, did not get the 'popular vote' majority win but won the Electoral College and the Presidency. NO TANTRUM.
Hillary, a Democrat, won the 'popular vote' but lost the Electoral College and Presidency. TANTRUM.
PROVEN!
Next.....
There is no "Democrats" as actors in this question, any more than there's a "Clinton" (either one).
There is no "Bill Clinton" in this issue.
There is no "Hillary Clinton" in this issue.
I guess to pre-empt even more moronity we should note there is also no "George Clinton" in this issue.
K? This is not about any specific PERSON or specific PEOPLE or specific PARTIES.
Your incessant whining about not being able to comprehend the big picture is your problem, no one else's.
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 ever even BEEN TO Mississippi? I doubt it. In any case is it not one of the United States? As such is it not affected by how this country elects its chief executive?
If there were no EC everybody's vote would start counting, whereas the current system systematically tosses millions of votes directly into the shitcan. For most states, certainly including Mississippi, there's no reason to even get out of bed on election day; the outcome is predetermined like a Saddam Hussein 99% tally. So what's the point? Removing the EC would at least give them a chance, so no I don't think they'd be "horrified" by that at all. That's just absurd.
Why the fuck do you think we have a national turnout rate dozens of points BELOW other "first-world" countries? Think about it.
.In the real world nobody campaigns in Mississippi. The red guy knows he has a gimme and the blue guy knows he has no shot. But that's entirely the fault of the WTA system, which also means any voter who wants the blue guy has no vote. The only POTUS candy I can think of who went to Mississippi as an actual nominee was Reagan, and that was only because he was there to address the South as a region to appeal to the racists. Third partiers like Thurmond and Wallace did, but their strategy was entirely regional. And it's also worth noting that that strategy was to siphon off enough votes from the South so as to deny an electoral majority to any candidate, thus tossing the whole election into the House of Reps where anything can happen ---- in other words to undermine the entire election itself --- yet another argument against the system as it is.
No I'm saying it because to eliminate the electoral college would result in a war.You’re only saying that because you think it helps liberals... patheticIt would be a declaration of war.Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...
Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.
States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…
There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...
I don't see it happening.
The people proposing it should be shot.
The founders were wise men for their time - but in hindsight they did some dumb shit. The Electoral College is dumb shit.
You're using the 3/5 compromise and the electoral college interchangeably. The two have nothing to do with each other. However, douchebags find it useful to treat them as if they are the same thing.It does not matter how many times you repeat your lie, it remains a lie.Time to end the racist Electoral College. It was created by racists for racist reasons.
Gainsaying doesn't change the fact that it was deliberately set up as a stacked deck in favor of the slaveholding states who got to apportion themselves counting three-fifths of their slaves while granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote,.meaning they had disporportionate power compared to non-slaveholding states. That's just, again, historical fact.
Ever sit in school civics class and wonder why four of the first five POTUSes (and 8 of the first 9 terms) were guys from Virginia? Well, that's it. another mystery solved. And all four were slaveholders. African slavery could not exist without a pre-foundation of racism to justify it.
That's also why this hallucinatory post above:
--- is utter malarkey. It was anything BUT equal, not to mention the vote, where it existed at all, was limited to men, and limited to white men, and often limited to white men who owned property. There is no definition of "EVERYBODY" that can shoehorn in there.The Electoral College has everything to do with EQUAL REPRESENTATION of everyone
Of course that's not the only reason the EC was contrived but it's one of the three that no longer apply.
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).
You just PROVED MY POINT, Dumbass.
I accept your concession. What I won't do is cut it out of the quote like a goddam wimp.
Fortunately, it only takes 13 of those states to vote no.No I'm saying it because to eliminate the electoral college would result in a war.
The only reason you pieces of shit want to eliminate the electoral college is so you can remove the ability of those who live in the vast expanses that you call *fly over* to govern themselves. It's so you can rob and abuse the people who live in those areas, and overthrow our government that was created specifically to prevent that from taking place.
You're using the 3/5 compromise and the electoral college interchangeably. The two have nothing to do with each other. However, douchebags find it useful to treat them as if they are the same thing.It does not matter how many times you repeat your lie, it remains a lie.Time to end the racist Electoral College. It was created by racists for racist reasons.
Gainsaying doesn't change the fact that it was deliberately set up as a stacked deck in favor of the slaveholding states who got to apportion themselves counting three-fifths of their slaves while granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote,.meaning they had disporportionate power compared to non-slaveholding states. That's just, again, historical fact.
Ever sit in school civics class and wonder why four of the first five POTUSes (and 8 of the first 9 terms) were guys from Virginia? Well, that's it. another mystery solved. And all four were slaveholders. African slavery could not exist without a pre-foundation of racism to justify it.
That's also why this hallucinatory post above:
--- is utter malarkey. It was anything BUT equal, not to mention the vote, where it existed at all, was limited to men, and limited to white men, and often limited to white men who owned property. There is no definition of "EVERYBODY" that can shoehorn in there.The Electoral College has everything to do with EQUAL REPRESENTATION of everyone
Of course that's not the only reason the EC was contrived but it's one of the three that no longer apply.
Looks like they planned well with just that expectationThe founders may have had good hindsight - but they had piss poor foresight.
Well, how were they supposed to know their noble experiment in freedom was going to spawn retards like you?
That's because slavery isn't the basis for our electoral system.Can anyone deny that the Electoral College was originally based on racism and slavery?
I can, but I'm not going to bother, because I don't give a damn. It was a good and effective compromise that works well, whatever reason there was for making it. I'm not a simpleminded leftist, so I don't spend a lot of time kvetching about, "I have to hate this because some jackwad on the Internet said it was connected somehow to something bad two centuries ago." Don't care.
My family OWNED slaves two centuries ago. I'm not planning to consign all my currently-living relatives to the flames of perdition because of that. Life moves on. Learn to deal with the now.
Kind of bizzaro how this post says "move (ourselves) on" from the slavery thing --- yet doesn't care to move (our electoral system) on from the slavery basis. Having it both ways: Priceless.
Can you leftwing douchebags ever stop dragging racism into every policy discussion?
Are you familiar with the concept of swing states?Then point out my mistake.Its going because only a few states actually pick the president (swing states).Vermont and RI have very similar ratios of voters per EC vote. So stop whining.
The Electoral College isn't going anywhere because the States elect the president.
And wyoming residents have 43x voting power than california resident.
Without the skewing of the process to focus on the so-called “battleground” states where the balance can be tipped in the Electoral College, candidates would be freed to make appeals to voters in every part of the country
I love how leftists discover something literally decades after their peers do, promptly misunderstand it thoroughly, and then wander around pronouncing on it as though they're experts.
Your entire post, and the premise you're operating from. I just told you that.
You're not getting any swifter on the uptake, Sparkles.
Presidential candidates only care about swing states, largely because of electoral college.
Take care of electoral college, and everybody in the USA will get to pick the president, not just those who live in swing states. This much I know is true, is it not?
I'm not sure that candidates showing up in a state to eat their hoagies or drink their coffee at diners is crucial anymore. Maybe in 1880 candidates needed to ride the rails to get their message out to the folks who didn't read newspapers much, but with social media, television and radio, plus excellent newspapers, there is not really a great need for candidates to show up. I don't know if Clinton really lost those states because she was taking a vacation in August--I think there was actually a lot more to it than that.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 ever even BEEN TO Mississippi? I doubt it. In any case is it not one of the United States? As such is it not affected by how this country elects its chief executive?
If there were no EC everybody's vote would start counting, whereas the current system systematically tosses millions of votes directly into the shitcan. For most states, certainly including Mississippi, there's no reason to even get out of bed on election day; the outcome is predetermined like a Saddam Hussein 99% tally. So what's the point? Removing the EC would at least give them a chance, so no I don't think they'd be "horrified" by that at all. That's just absurd.
Why the fuck do you think we have a national turnout rate dozens of points BELOW other "first-world" countries? Think about it.
.In the real world nobody campaigns in Mississippi. The red guy knows he has a gimme and the blue guy knows he has no shot. But that's entirely the fault of the WTA system, which also means any voter who wants the blue guy has no vote. The only POTUS candy I can think of who went to Mississippi as an actual nominee was Reagan, and that was only because he was there to address the South as a region to appeal to the racists. Third partiers like Thurmond and Wallace did, but their strategy was entirely regional. And it's also worth noting that that strategy was to siphon off enough votes from the South so as to deny an electoral majority to any candidate, thus tossing the whole election into the House of Reps where anything can happen ---- in other words to undermine the entire election itself --- yet another argument against the system as it is.
In your example no one would still campaign in Mississippi. In fact, candidates wouldn't campaign in New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio and the list goes on. New York and LA would decide everything for the entire country.
Because they're trying to whip up the immigrant/crimina./student democratic base to a point where they just start mobbing. They are trying to create a wave of violent revolutionaries who will physically overthrow the government.Among the petulant screeds that, in some circles, pass as meaningful arguments for its replacement, I don't ever see anyone in favor of replacing the EC address a basic reality of the issue:
It takes just 13 states to stop the amendment necessary to eliminate the EC and replace it with something else. If you cannot name 13 states that will never vote for such a thing let me know and I'll do your thinking for your.
How do you plan to do to convince these states to vote for the repeal?
If you don't have a plan, why do you waste your time whining and crying about something you know you can do noting to change?
Most of the people who go to see a candidate when they visit already support that candidate. They have seen and read all they need to. Sitting in the top of a crowded football stadium and watching a wee figure on the stage is no better --not as good really-- as sitting home and watching an interview on tv.
If you can’t win, change the rules!
With pure popular vote Rural America would lose every presidential election... factLook 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.
Er..not for no reason.If you can’t win, change the rules!
Like putting in strict voter ID for no reason ?
