Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Pogo]

If you feel certain he is NOT demanding a more powerful vote then you are bad at math.

are you a girl? (kidding)

If you feel certain that he IS demanding a more powerful vote, then you are bad at logic.

Are you a man?

LOGIC


I can understand that a small state might not want to be forced to comply to the wishes and desires of a larger state.....

so why can't you understand that a larger state might not like it either?

(note i am not insulting you or mocking you.....Is there any possibility that you can do the same?)

We are not talking about forcing a small state to accept gay marriage or legalize pot. They can discriminate and destroy lives as they see fit. This is about one issue: the presidency.

The president of the WHOLE COUNTRY EQUALLY.

The presidency of ALL of the citizens equally.

NO state should carry extra weight.

Alabama shouldn't have more influence over who runs the country than New York does.

If 63 million Americans vote for....oh...I dunno.....let's say Hillary Clinton....

and 3 million LESS people vote for some other guy.....

the person with the most votes should win.

period.

Perfectly logical and fair.

What's logical is that the President gets to choose Supreme Court judges and now states are forced to accept gay marriage against their will. It's also logical that the President has power with what to do in a state such as an oil pipeline of perhaps where future nuclear waste gets buried. Or perhaps that a President can threaten your school by withdrawing financial aid if they don't allow weirdos in dresses to be in the bathroom or locker room with your daughter in school.

Where do you people get this idea that a smaller populated state has equal power to a large one? It takes nine of our lowest populated states to equal the population of New York city......ONE CITY. New York state has 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3.

What's logical is never believing or trusting any leftist, ESPECIALLY when they say, "Just give us what we want on this thing, and we PROMISE it won't interfere with what we're just SURE is important to you." Not only are they lying like the sacks of dog shit that they are, but they also have no fucking clue what matters to non-leftists, let alone why it matters.

What's better is they try to frame the debate as if it was not Trump's win that ruffled their feathers; it's about fairness to everybody.

Never heard any mention on the EC during the Obama or Clinton years. No problem, as long as we won, we don't care how.

If it's not the electoral college, it's gerrymandering. If it's not gerrymandering, it's voter ID. If it's not voter ID, it's purging the voter rolls. If it's not purging the voter roles, it's because of Russia. The list goes on and on.

One thing you will never hear the Democrats say, and that is "It's our fault we lost. The country doesn't like our ideas. We need to change our platform as a party, and stop with this insistence that everything is about race with the Republicans!"

Once AGAIN your intentional ignorance, or selective memory, of ongoing controversy about the EC is at best incompetent and more likely just dishonest. I say "more likely" because you've been going to this crutch over and over and over as a tactic to (try to) avoid the arguments. It's as if you think it's some kind of get-out-of-argument-free card.

But you're absolutely welcome to prove that negative. By all means show us how this just came up and how Madison's and Jefferson's objections just "didn't happen". And when you've done that essplain to the class why this is all bubbling up now, in an odd-numbered non-election year. OOPS.

AGAIN, the EC question has nothing to do with political parties, particularly today's political parties, neither of which even existed when the EC started to get abused. Another crutch you lean on because you can't handle the issue.

 

[Pogo]

Correct.
Having ruled out democracy, which do you then prefer, oligarchy or autocracy?

The former Soviet Union had a “Politburo.” So I think Democrats want rule by committee. Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, Harris, and Ocasio Chavez running the grand Republic into the fucking sewer.

Interesting. So "democracy" then, to your mind anyway, implies "Soviet Union" which then implies "Democrats" and "rule by committee." Methinks you prone to often sliding well off the rails of your own slippery slopes. Somehow you've managed to remain blissfully unaware that every President and political party (not to mention billionaire driven oligopoly) has thus far "ruled by committee" Meanwhile, you've utterly failed to address a very reasonable, unbiased question..

Democratic Party is a threat to our Constitutional democratic Republic. Democrats helped Putin in his efforts to divide and weaken the United States. Job well done you miserable cocksuckers. The left wing extremists in this nation (Democrats) can’t win legitimately through a democratic process so they steal elections through “vote harvesting” and special counsel investigations to overturn a Constitutional, democratic, election. You fuckers make me sick. Hold everyone of you no good sonsabitches accountable. I don’t like the fact that Democrats attempt to take my vote for Donald Trump away from me. Most lowlife, underhanded, thing I have ever seen in politics and I spent over 20 years working for Democratic Party.

It's not hard to see why they kicked you out.

I left of my own volition because idiots like you took over the party.

Sorry, I've never even been IN a party let alone run one.

What do you get out of that shit, besides a binary mind?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you feel certain that he IS demanding a more powerful vote, then you are bad at logic.

Are you a man?

LOGIC


I can understand that a small state might not want to be forced to comply to the wishes and desires of a larger state.....

so why can't you understand that a larger state might not like it either?

(note i am not insulting you or mocking you.....Is there any possibility that you can do the same?)

We are not talking about forcing a small state to accept gay marriage or legalize pot. They can discriminate and destroy lives as they see fit. This is about one issue: the presidency.

The president of the WHOLE COUNTRY EQUALLY.

The presidency of ALL of the citizens equally.

NO state should carry extra weight.

Alabama shouldn't have more influence over who runs the country than New York does.

If 63 million Americans vote for....oh...I dunno.....let's say Hillary Clinton....

and 3 million LESS people vote for some other guy.....

the person with the most votes should win.

period.

Perfectly logical and fair.

What's logical is that the President gets to choose Supreme Court judges and now states are forced to accept gay marriage against their will. It's also logical that the President has power with what to do in a state such as an oil pipeline of perhaps where future nuclear waste gets buried. Or perhaps that a President can threaten your school by withdrawing financial aid if they don't allow weirdos in dresses to be in the bathroom or locker room with your daughter in school.

Where do you people get this idea that a smaller populated state has equal power to a large one? It takes nine of our lowest populated states to equal the population of New York city......ONE CITY. New York state has 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3.

What's logical is never believing or trusting any leftist, ESPECIALLY when they say, "Just give us what we want on this thing, and we PROMISE it won't interfere with what we're just SURE is important to you." Not only are they lying like the sacks of dog shit that they are, but they also have no fucking clue what matters to non-leftists, let alone why it matters.

What's better is they try to frame the debate as if it was not Trump's win that ruffled their feathers; it's about fairness to everybody.

Never heard any mention on the EC during the Obama or Clinton years. No problem, as long as we won, we don't care how.

If it's not the electoral college, it's gerrymandering. If it's not gerrymandering, it's voter ID. If it's not voter ID, it's purging the voter rolls. If it's not purging the voter roles, it's because of Russia. The list goes on and on.

One thing you will never hear the Democrats say, and that is "It's our fault we lost. The country doesn't like our ideas. We need to change our platform as a party, and stop with this insistence that everything is about race with the Republicans!"

Not really surprising. Leftists seem dependent to an alarmng amount for their identity and self-esteem on the "moral superiority" they believe their political positions provide them. Under those circumstances, to admit that people just think their ideas and positions suck would be the same as admitting that people think THEY suck. They can't do that, so they have to make excuses why people "really love" them, and it was just somehow - probably unerhandedly - prevented from being obvious.

I think it's simple brainwashing myself. Every time they lose, their puppet masters tell them why. If they ever told the sheep the truth, it would knock the wind out of their sails and they might give up on elections.

Instead, they tell them "you really won, it's just that Republicans found a way to cheat you out of your vote." That gives them even more of a reason to come out and vote the next time. Those lousy cheating Republicans are not going to do this to me again this year! Wait and see!

They have spent decades convincing their followers that Republicans are a thing of the past; white men slowly dying off; yesterdays ideas, and the country is turning more progressive. I've been hearing that for over 30 years now.

 

[Pogo]

So you have zero argument for morphing 47 into 100.

Guess that's settled then. Welcome aboard.

I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?

It wouldn't matter if he pulled 30%. As long as he was the most popular he gets the votes.

Once AGAIN your task was to make the case why it SHOULD work that way. "Should" was your term when you asked the question. I answered that question and gave my reasoning. All you have in response is "well that's the way it works", which is not an answer to "should".

I can only conclude that you CAN'T make that case, which is actually the correct answer. So just admit it.

Your "reasoning" is based on the moronic notion that there's something intrinsically moral about majority rule. Once you ignore that idiocy, your argument falls apart.

Actually I spelled all that out in 1546. Ask your reading teacher to read it aloud to you. Then you can go argue with the Founders.

Oh and be sure to give 'em the finger. That'll be cute.

 

[Pogo]

we are a Constitutional Federal Republic.

Correct.

A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.

Having ruled out democracy, which do you then prefer, oligarchy or autocracy?

Trump's indifference to the emoluments clause well illustrates the inherent problems concomitant with autocratic republics. The Kochs driving us into another oil war with Venezuela just to supply their two crud refineries in the Gulf well indicate oligarchic republic failure. Best to stick with our good, old democratic republic minus the billionaires.

Notice "democratic republic".. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Both. All members of both major Parties in fact. Two peas in a pod, only one simply can't exist without the other. So one big pea (or pee) in reality. Created, as the Founders completely intended, to ensure that wealthy, land owning capitalists would always run the show free of any genuine fettering from the masses of supportive asses gratuitously labeled The People. Nevertheless, the Founders had no way of knowing the disgusting degree to which the workers would be distanced from and by the owners.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Mentioning the emoluments clause is the way you identify yourself as a brain dead moron.

Really. 'Cause only "brain-dead morons" read the Constitution?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you feel certain that he IS demanding a more powerful vote, then you are bad at logic.

Are you a man?

LOGIC


I can understand that a small state might not want to be forced to comply to the wishes and desires of a larger state.....

so why can't you understand that a larger state might not like it either?

(note i am not insulting you or mocking you.....Is there any possibility that you can do the same?)

We are not talking about forcing a small state to accept gay marriage or legalize pot. They can discriminate and destroy lives as they see fit. This is about one issue: the presidency.

The president of the WHOLE COUNTRY EQUALLY.

The presidency of ALL of the citizens equally.

NO state should carry extra weight.

Alabama shouldn't have more influence over who runs the country than New York does.

If 63 million Americans vote for....oh...I dunno.....let's say Hillary Clinton....

and 3 million LESS people vote for some other guy.....

the person with the most votes should win.

period.

Perfectly logical and fair.

What's logical is that the President gets to choose Supreme Court judges and now states are forced to accept gay marriage against their will. It's also logical that the President has power with what to do in a state such as an oil pipeline of perhaps where future nuclear waste gets buried. Or perhaps that a President can threaten your school by withdrawing financial aid if they don't allow weirdos in dresses to be in the bathroom or locker room with your daughter in school.

Where do you people get this idea that a smaller populated state has equal power to a large one? It takes nine of our lowest populated states to equal the population of New York city......ONE CITY. New York state has 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3.

What's logical is never believing or trusting any leftist, ESPECIALLY when they say, "Just give us what we want on this thing, and we PROMISE it won't interfere with what we're just SURE is important to you." Not only are they lying like the sacks of dog shit that they are, but they also have no fucking clue what matters to non-leftists, let alone why it matters.

What's better is they try to frame the debate as if it was not Trump's win that ruffled their feathers; it's about fairness to everybody.

Never heard any mention on the EC during the Obama or Clinton years. No problem, as long as we won, we don't care how.

If it's not the electoral college, it's gerrymandering. If it's not gerrymandering, it's voter ID. If it's not voter ID, it's purging the voter rolls. If it's not purging the voter roles, it's because of Russia. The list goes on and on.

One thing you will never hear the Democrats say, and that is "It's our fault we lost. The country doesn't like our ideas. We need to change our platform as a party, and stop with this insistence that everything is about race with the Republicans!"

Once AGAIN your intentional ignorance, or selective memory, of ongoing controversy about the EC is at best incompetent and more likely just dishonest. I say "more likely" because you've been going to this crutch over and over and over as a tactic to (try to) avoid the arguments. It's as if you think it's some kind of get-out-of-argument-free card.

But you're absolutely welcome to prove that negative. By all means show us how this just came up and how Madison's and Jefferson's objections just "didn't happen". And when you've done that essplain to the class why this is all bubbling up now, in an odd-numbered non-election year. OOPS.

AGAIN, the EC question has nothing to do with political parties, particularly today's political parties, neither of which even existed when the EC started to get abused. Another crutch you lean on because you can't handle the issue.

You really put yourself in a win-win position, didn't you?

HTF am I supposed to prove something didn't happen?

 

[Cecilie1200]

LOGIC


I can understand that a small state might not want to be forced to comply to the wishes and desires of a larger state.....

so why can't you understand that a larger state might not like it either?

(note i am not insulting you or mocking you.....Is there any possibility that you can do the same?)

We are not talking about forcing a small state to accept gay marriage or legalize pot. They can discriminate and destroy lives as they see fit. This is about one issue: the presidency.

The president of the WHOLE COUNTRY EQUALLY.

The presidency of ALL of the citizens equally.

NO state should carry extra weight.

Alabama shouldn't have more influence over who runs the country than New York does.

If 63 million Americans vote for....oh...I dunno.....let's say Hillary Clinton....

and 3 million LESS people vote for some other guy.....

the person with the most votes should win.

period.

Perfectly logical and fair.

What's logical is that the President gets to choose Supreme Court judges and now states are forced to accept gay marriage against their will. It's also logical that the President has power with what to do in a state such as an oil pipeline of perhaps where future nuclear waste gets buried. Or perhaps that a President can threaten your school by withdrawing financial aid if they don't allow weirdos in dresses to be in the bathroom or locker room with your daughter in school.

Where do you people get this idea that a smaller populated state has equal power to a large one? It takes nine of our lowest populated states to equal the population of New York city......ONE CITY. New York state has 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3.

What's logical is never believing or trusting any leftist, ESPECIALLY when they say, "Just give us what we want on this thing, and we PROMISE it won't interfere with what we're just SURE is important to you." Not only are they lying like the sacks of dog shit that they are, but they also have no fucking clue what matters to non-leftists, let alone why it matters.

What's better is they try to frame the debate as if it was not Trump's win that ruffled their feathers; it's about fairness to everybody.

Never heard any mention on the EC during the Obama or Clinton years. No problem, as long as we won, we don't care how.

If it's not the electoral college, it's gerrymandering. If it's not gerrymandering, it's voter ID. If it's not voter ID, it's purging the voter rolls. If it's not purging the voter roles, it's because of Russia. The list goes on and on.

One thing you will never hear the Democrats say, and that is "It's our fault we lost. The country doesn't like our ideas. We need to change our platform as a party, and stop with this insistence that everything is about race with the Republicans!"

Not really surprising. Leftists seem dependent to an alarmng amount for their identity and self-esteem on the "moral superiority" they believe their political positions provide them. Under those circumstances, to admit that people just think their ideas and positions suck would be the same as admitting that people think THEY suck. They can't do that, so they have to make excuses why people "really love" them, and it was just somehow - probably unerhandedly - prevented from being obvious.

I think it's simple brainwashing myself. Every time they lose, their puppet masters tell them why. If they ever told the sheep the truth, it would knock the wind out of their sails and they might give up on elections.

Instead, they tell them "you really won, it's just that Republicans found a way to cheat you out of your vote." That gives them even more of a reason to come out and vote the next time. Those lousy cheating Republicans are not going to do this to me again this year! Wait and see!

They have spent decades convincing their followers that Republicans are a thing of the past; white men slowly dying off; yesterdays ideas, and the country is turning more progressive. I've been hearing that for over 30 years now.

I'll go with a combination. They're very susceptible to that sort of brainwashing, because they don't want to even consider the possibility that they aren't gloriously wonderful and special.

 

[Pogo]

I think you just found the excuse you need to quit discussing and go prove your claims ---- you have no idea what you're talking about in political terms.

There is no "today's definition". Liberal means Liberal, period. And it does not mean "leftist" because leftist means leftist.

Liberalism is opposed from both the right AND the left.

No, liberals and leftists are all part of the Democrat party. In fact we have a few in the Republican party, but they are anomalies and certainly the minority of the party.

Again BULL SHIT. Your choosing not to see or remember something IN NO WAY means it didn't happen. Earth simply does not work that way. So pleading ignorance is in no way argument.

For a guy who wants to spend time discussing you're woefully ill prepared for it.

Why would they complain if they won both? Nobody brought up the popular vote on the left because there was no need to. They won!

This is not about what's fair or what is better. It's about the left figuring out ways to cheat future elections. If you can't win by the rules, change the rules.

Today's left are not liberals. They wants us to call them liberals because it associate them with founding fathers, although they're nowhere near them. Today left are progressives, which is closest to Marxist Bolsheviks.

I address people by what they wish to be called. They use progressives more than liberal today, but 20 years ago it was pure liberal. I'm fine with that.

Now it's socialist/ democrat, and that will be expanding in the party as time moves forward. I will use that very term as well except I may just use the word Socialist. It's less typing and inserting "democrat" in there is just softening the blow. Besides the fact down the road, they too will drop the word Democrat and just go with Socialist.

What you're correcting here is another poster's own affixation of a fake term. Neither you nor he has the standing to speak for them.

Btw "democrat" and "Democrat" are also two different things.

 

[Pogo]

LOGIC


I can understand that a small state might not want to be forced to comply to the wishes and desires of a larger state.....

so why can't you understand that a larger state might not like it either?

(note i am not insulting you or mocking you.....Is there any possibility that you can do the same?)

We are not talking about forcing a small state to accept gay marriage or legalize pot. They can discriminate and destroy lives as they see fit. This is about one issue: the presidency.

The president of the WHOLE COUNTRY EQUALLY.

The presidency of ALL of the citizens equally.

NO state should carry extra weight.

Alabama shouldn't have more influence over who runs the country than New York does.

If 63 million Americans vote for....oh...I dunno.....let's say Hillary Clinton....

and 3 million LESS people vote for some other guy.....

the person with the most votes should win.

period.

Perfectly logical and fair.

What's logical is that the President gets to choose Supreme Court judges and now states are forced to accept gay marriage against their will. It's also logical that the President has power with what to do in a state such as an oil pipeline of perhaps where future nuclear waste gets buried. Or perhaps that a President can threaten your school by withdrawing financial aid if they don't allow weirdos in dresses to be in the bathroom or locker room with your daughter in school.

Where do you people get this idea that a smaller populated state has equal power to a large one? It takes nine of our lowest populated states to equal the population of New York city......ONE CITY. New York state has 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3.

What's logical is never believing or trusting any leftist, ESPECIALLY when they say, "Just give us what we want on this thing, and we PROMISE it won't interfere with what we're just SURE is important to you." Not only are they lying like the sacks of dog shit that they are, but they also have no fucking clue what matters to non-leftists, let alone why it matters.

What's better is they try to frame the debate as if it was not Trump's win that ruffled their feathers; it's about fairness to everybody.

Never heard any mention on the EC during the Obama or Clinton years. No problem, as long as we won, we don't care how.

If it's not the electoral college, it's gerrymandering. If it's not gerrymandering, it's voter ID. If it's not voter ID, it's purging the voter rolls. If it's not purging the voter roles, it's because of Russia. The list goes on and on.

One thing you will never hear the Democrats say, and that is "It's our fault we lost. The country doesn't like our ideas. We need to change our platform as a party, and stop with this insistence that everything is about race with the Republicans!"

Once AGAIN your intentional ignorance, or selective memory, of ongoing controversy about the EC is at best incompetent and more likely just dishonest. I say "more likely" because you've been going to this crutch over and over and over as a tactic to (try to) avoid the arguments. It's as if you think it's some kind of get-out-of-argument-free card.

But you're absolutely welcome to prove that negative. By all means show us how this just came up and how Madison's and Jefferson's objections just "didn't happen". And when you've done that essplain to the class why this is all bubbling up now, in an odd-numbered non-election year. OOPS.

AGAIN, the EC question has nothing to do with political parties, particularly today's political parties, neither of which even existed when the EC started to get abused. Another crutch you lean on because you can't handle the issue.

You really put yourself in a win-win position, didn't you?

HTF am I supposed to prove something didn't happen?

Beats the fuck outta me, but it was your idea.

Rotsa ruck. I'll be interested if you can do it.

 

[Pogo]

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

The United States is a federation of States. That's why each state has equal representation in the Senate. It used to be that each state government chose the people to represent the state, but some demagogues conned the public into changing that good sense arrangement.

Do you think it ever occurs to leftists to wonder what the purpose of HAVING states even is? I'm guessing if they've even thought about it, they assumed it was just to have a reference point on a map.

Believe it or not, leftwingers believe the United States created the states! They believe Virginia was created by the Constitution.

I kid you not. They are that stupid.

Izzat right.


Link?

(How to keep a moron busy....)

 

[Pogo]

It’s a stupid subject to argue about. It’s not getting changed anytime soon. Better to concentrate on voter registration and being ready to get people to the polls, whether it’s renting buses across the country, or Beyoncé holding a free concert in St. Louis for all who voted (I have ideas!).

Whatever it takes.

In other words drag people to the polls that are uninterested in voting and don't know crap about politics or policies. Yep, that's the Democrat way.

If people don't want to vote enough to do it on their own, the nation is better off without them voting at all.

That's why Democrats are so scared of Voter-ID. They know Republicans will crawl over hot coals to get to the polls. Democrats? Only if it's close enough, convenient enough, and no effort involved.

Obtaining a voter ID takes minimal effort, but effort nonetheless. Democrats are scared their welfare food stamp recipients won't put in that effort and it will cost them votes. But they can't tell the truth; Democrats never can, so they created the discrimination narrative instead.

I've never approved of having "easy voter registration" every-damned-where you look. If it's too hard for you to get it done without having your welfare caseworker ask you if you want to register every time you go in, then it's obviously not very important to you.

One idea I do support is making election day a national holiday. Getting to the polls is much more difficult than getting registered to vote.

Mark the date, I just put an "agree" on one of your posts proving anything can happen. Positive reinforcement.

"First Tuesday after the first Monday" makes as much damn sense as turning the New Year 11 days after the beginning of Winter. I understand there's historical basis for it but that page done been turned a long time ago.

Like a few other things.

 

[Pogo]

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

The United States is a federation of States. That's why each state has equal representation in the Senate. It used to be that each state government chose the people to represent the state, but some demagogues conned the public into changing that good sense arrangement.

Do you think it ever occurs to leftists to wonder what the purpose of HAVING states even is? I'm guessing if they've even thought about it, they assumed it was just to have a reference point on a map.

Believe it or not, leftwingers believe the United States created the states! They believe Virginia was created by the Constitution.

I kid you not. They are that stupid.

I wish that was surprising.

I wish he'd link it. As long as he can't I'm watching pretzels being made.

 

[Pogo]

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

The United States is a federation of States. That's why each state has equal representation in the Senate. It used to be that each state government chose the people to represent the state, but some demagogues conned the public into changing that good sense arrangement.

Do you think it ever occurs to leftists to wonder what the purpose of HAVING states even is? I'm guessing if they've even thought about it, they assumed it was just to have a reference point on a map.

Believe it or not, leftwingers believe the United States created the states! They believe Virginia was created by the Constitution.

I kid you not. They are that stupid.

I wish that was surprising.

I have debated people on this very issue. It always comes up in discussions about the Civil War.

Are you thinking of WEST Virginia?

What am I saying, "are you thinking..."

 

[Pogo]

Wait a minute........do you agree or disagree that we would have a better outcome if only people knowledgable of politics were allowed to vote?

Nope. It's our duty to be informed.

Who would determine who is and isn't knowledgeable and using what criteria?

That's complete bullshit

If it were me making that decision I would certainly exclude you based on your idiotic posts on this forum. You good with that?

Oh my, did I rub some salt in the cut?

How about a simple test that just about anybody can pass before being allowed to vote? Questions like who is the VP and what party does he represent? Who is the Speaker of the House? What party is in leadership of the House? The Senate? Just things like that.

What you're afraid of is that all the Obamaphone ladies are on your side and wouldn't be able to vote.

It is a slippery slope but yeah I like the principle.

 

[Votto]

AOC says that the Electoral College should be free and not done away with.

Can't argue with that.

 

[Pogo]

That's why Democrats are so scared of Voter-ID. They know Republicans will crawl over hot coals to get to the polls. Democrats? Only if it's close enough, convenient enough, and no effort involved.

Obtaining a voter ID takes minimal effort, but effort nonetheless. Democrats are scared their welfare food stamp recipients won't put in that effort and it will cost them votes. But they can't tell the truth; Democrats never can, so they created the discrimination narrative instead.

I've never approved of having "easy voter registration" every-damned-where you look. If it's too hard for you to get it done without having your welfare caseworker ask you if you want to register every time you go in, then it's obviously not very important to you.

One idea I do support is making election day a national holiday. Getting to the polls is much more difficult than getting registered to vote.

I absolutely agree, because making it a holiday would bring more working people to the polls, and we all know how most working people vote. The ironic part of that is Democrats have suggested that in the past.

Well, no, we need people who are intelligent and rational. Just knowing a few things about politics doesn't make you a good voter. Just look at all the morons in this forum who live and breath politics.

I think taxpayers pay more attention to politics than those who are on the dole. After all, when you go out and create money that government confiscates, you are more concerned with how the money is spent.

People who don't work can go to the polls anytime. They have shorter lines if any line at all (depending on the type of election). Working people have a little tougher time, especially those who work 10 hours or more a day. Even if you can get to the polls, you are too exhausted and just want to have dinner and relax.

Don't normal places have early voting? We do here.

I can't remember the last time I had to wait for actual election day. Course, this is a tiny village and there wouldn't be a line anyway....

 

[Pogo]

I don't think the use of the term "disenfranchised" is accurate here. Just because the candidate you vote for doesn't win, doesn't mean you're vote doesn't count. No one's vote is being dismissed. Your state just isn't awarding its electors the way you'd like.

Actually that's exactly what it means. When the electors of AridZona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hamster, New Mexico, North Cackalackee, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin ALL go to Congress and tell them "we're just dumbstruck, it seems literally EVERYBODY in our state voted for _____" despite the fact that NOBODY in any of those states scored even as much as 50% of the vote ..... that means more than half of that state's voters had their ballot dumped immediately into the shredder, never to be seen again. And in the case of the other states, less than half but a significant proportion, up to 49.9%.

So the fact that individual voters are already disenfranchised is not only well known, it's a straight mathematical equation. You'll also note that Cecile's state is the first one on that list. Mine's in there too.

And that's a major reason our national turnout is abysmal. (Again) in most states that election is a foregone conclusion, therefore no individual voter can find any point in voting at all. It's going to be meaningless. They are in effect disenfranchised before the vote even begins, which is after all what disenfranchised means. Whether such disenfranchisement is by a gang mentality in the EC or by a literacy test or by other intimidation, is a distinction without a difference.

"Disenfranchised" means one's right to vote has been taken away, so stow the equivocation. Again, what you're complaining about is the fact that most states award their delegates as a block. Voters in those states still get to vote, and their votes are counted. It's good, old-fashioned majority rule. It's just happening at the state level rather than federal.

That's not what "majority" means, and yes it absolutely IS disenfranchisement.

If you vote for your Governor and one guy gets 50% and the other guy gets 48% and you voted for the second guy, your guy lost but at least your vote COUNTED. Your state doesn't go "oh wow man it was unanimous, literally everybody voted for Saddam Hussein for governor". That's bullshit. See post 1546 for how that shit got started and why it's fucked up.

 

[JBond]

Didn't waste time reading the thread. Anyone that wants to abolish the Electoral College is a nationalist socialist.

 

[Pogo]

Didn't waste time reading the thread. Anyone that wants to abolish the Electoral College is a nationalist socialist.

You basically just said the same thing twice. Your second sentence makes the first one obvious.

 

[bripat9643]

I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?

It wouldn't matter if he pulled 30%. As long as he was the most popular he gets the votes.

Once AGAIN your task was to make the case why it SHOULD work that way. "Should" was your term when you asked the question. I answered that question and gave my reasoning. All you have in response is "well that's the way it works", which is not an answer to "should".

I can only conclude that you CAN'T make that case, which is actually the correct answer. So just admit it.

Your "reasoning" is based on the moronic notion that there's something intrinsically moral about majority rule. Once you ignore that idiocy, your argument falls apart.

Actually I spelled all that out in 1546. Ask your reading teacher to read it aloud to you. Then you can go argue with the Founders.

Oh and be sure to give 'em the finger. That'll be cute.

Wrong. That's just a lot of blather based on the premise that there's something intrinsically moral about majority rule. First, prove that premise. However, it's already been shown to be absurd.