Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[bripat9643]

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?

Running a business has nothing to do with the emoluments clause, numskull. Stand over in the corner with the other brain dead morons.

 

[Pogo]

Just pointing out some facts. Sorry if facts offend you.

YOU offend me Ray. Idiots offend me. Racists offend me.

So how do you feel about your idiot friend above, voting Ray?

Does he get a pass? He clearly doesn't know shit. Does he get a pass?

Everybody here should be allowed to vote. What you don't understand is my suggestion is that people that have absolutely no knowledge of politics and policies not be allowed to vote.....zero. It has nothing to do with race or partisanship. What I would like to see is better representatives and not people who go to the polls for shits and giggles.

Let me ask: how did Alexandria Kelly Bundy make it to Congress--by a knowledgable electorate?

Who in the fuck is Alexandria Kelly Bundy?

 

[dblack]

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.

I'm not disagreeing that it's a problem. I'm just calling bullshit on your hysterical claim of voters being disenfranchised. They still have the right to vote, they're just not voting directly for the President. They're voting for who should get their state's electors. The fact that it's winner take all is no different than any other winner take all election. You're not "disenfranchised" if your candidate didn't win.

 

[JBond]

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.

Pogo... always appreciated your input. What are you saying?

 

[bripat9643]

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....

Early voting is an invitation for fraud. What's the need for it if the election is on a holiday or a Sunday?

 

[Pogo]

Just pointing out some facts. Sorry if facts offend you.

YOU offend me Ray. Idiots offend me. Racists offend me.

So how do you feel about your idiot friend above, voting Ray?

Does he get a pass? He clearly doesn't know shit. Does he get a pass?

Everybody here should be allowed to vote. What you don't understand is my suggestion is that people that have absolutely no knowledge of politics and policies not be allowed to vote.....zero. It has nothing to do with race or partisanship. What I would like to see is better representatives and not people who go to the polls for shits and giggles.

Let me ask: how did Alexandria Kelly Bundy make it to Congress--by a knowledgable electorate?

"Let me ask: how did Alexandria Kelly Bundy make it to Congress--by a knowledgable electorate?"


How did trump?

And how could Roy Moore almost win a senate seat in Alabama?

a guy who actually states he wants to criminalize gays

But he didn't win---did he?

Kotex was voted in during the primaries against a veteran politician. No Republican had a chance to beat any Democrat there. In other words, it was Democrats who voted her in--not Republicans.

Who the fuck is "Kotex"? Really? This is what you think of women? The Rumpian bloodletting when a woman's name comes up, really Ray?

This thread has been most informative....

 

[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.

Pogo... always appreciated your input. What are you saying?

I'm saying if you had read the thread, you wouldn't have gone to the second sentence. It's way deeper than that, and summing it up with "I didn't bother to read it" insults the argument.

Granted it's a long thread with its share of redundancy, misdirection etc. But that's no way to address it.

I'll cite again post 1546 for a background on the nuts and bolts. No one has tackled it yet. And like most of the thread it has nothing to do with "abolishing the EC". Not even the topic title implies that.

 

[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!"

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?

Really, this is more illogic, since you're talking about the modern-day Democrat Party when you mention newfound objections to the EC, and his response is, "That's not true, because 200 years ago . . . !"

Whether "the EC question" had anything to do with political parties at any other time in history is irrelevant to whether or not TODAY'S "EC question" does.

Honestly, some people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just pointing out some facts. Sorry if facts offend you.

YOU offend me Ray. Idiots offend me. Racists offend me.

So how do you feel about your idiot friend above, voting Ray?

Does he get a pass? He clearly doesn't know shit. Does he get a pass?

Everybody here should be allowed to vote. What you don't understand is my suggestion is that people that have absolutely no knowledge of politics and policies not be allowed to vote.....zero. It has nothing to do with race or partisanship. What I would like to see is better representatives and not people who go to the polls for shits and giggles.

Let me ask: how did Alexandria Kelly Bundy make it to Congress--by a knowledgable electorate?

"Let me ask: how did Alexandria Kelly Bundy make it to Congress--by a knowledgable electorate?"


How did trump?

And how could Roy Moore almost win a senate seat in Alabama?

a guy who actually states he wants to criminalize gays

But he didn't win---did he?

Kotex was voted in during the primaries against a veteran politician. No Republican had a chance to beat any Democrat there. In other words, it was Democrats who voted her in--not Republicans.

Who the fuck is "Kotex"? Really? This is what you think of women? The Rumpian bloodletting when a woman's name comes up, really Ray?

This thread has been most informative....

So funny how you leftists always read things that aren't there.

 

[Pogo]

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.

No Fingerboi, it's a thorough examination of how we got to where we are, what the Founders' intentions on the EC were, and how it got perverted. You even get to blame Andy Jackson for kicking it off, but I doubt you read that far. Actually I seriously doubt you read it at all. It's over your head. Has nothing to do with "morals" either.

 

[Pogo]

YOU offend me Ray. Idiots offend me. Racists offend me.

So how do you feel about your idiot friend above, voting Ray?

Does he get a pass? He clearly doesn't know shit. Does he get a pass?

Everybody here should be allowed to vote. What you don't understand is my suggestion is that people that have absolutely no knowledge of politics and policies not be allowed to vote.....zero. It has nothing to do with race or partisanship. What I would like to see is better representatives and not people who go to the polls for shits and giggles.

Let me ask: how did Alexandria Kelly Bundy make it to Congress--by a knowledgable electorate?

"Let me ask: how did Alexandria Kelly Bundy make it to Congress--by a knowledgable electorate?"


How did trump?

And how could Roy Moore almost win a senate seat in Alabama?

a guy who actually states he wants to criminalize gays

But he didn't win---did he?

Kotex was voted in during the primaries against a veteran politician. No Republican had a chance to beat any Democrat there. In other words, it was Democrats who voted her in--not Republicans.

Who the fuck is "Kotex"? Really? This is what you think of women? The Rumpian bloodletting when a woman's name comes up, really Ray?

This thread has been most informative....

So funny how you leftists always read things that aren't there.

What does "Kotex" mean? Perhaps it's an obscure language from central Asia I never heard of.

No I know exactly what you mean even if I don't know who you're talking about, and it's instructive that you think of women only in terms of menstrual blood. It says a LOT.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Really, this is more illogic, since you're talking about the modern-day Democrat Party when you mention newfound objections to the EC, and his response is, "That's not true, because 200 years ago . . . !"

Whether "the EC question" had anything to do with political parties at any other time in history is irrelevant to whether or not TODAY'S "EC question" does.

Honestly, some people.

Nobody's talking about "the modern day Democrat [sic] Party" which doesn't exist anyway. Nobody's talking about any political parties except those bent on misdirection because they don't have an argument. But I already pointed that out, which you would have seen if you weren't such a WIMP that you can't handle my points either.

 

[Pogo]

There you go, a perfect example. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that states must recognize gay marriage. Even states that voted against it back when Bush was President now are forced to have gay marriage.

A big chunk of those states wanted to keep slavery too...should that be legal because they want it?

Yes they did, that's why we had a civil war. Trying to equate slavery to gay marriage is quite a stretch. Slaves couldn't pack their bags and catch a plane to a state that didn't have it. And the war was not about forcing the rest of the country to accept slavery.

Not quite. It was however about a rich indolent planter class who wanted to continue to enrich themselves on the backs of slaves figuring they could take their ball and go home when faced with the prospect of not getting to push their weight around in the near future.

But that's not the topic here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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....

We have that here too, but what about the people who work 35 miles away from home? They leave very early for work; earlier than the polls open.

The only point I'm making is that I agree with Pat that it should be considered a holiday and everybody get off of work. Hell, we work the most hours in this country compared to other industrialized nations. We could use a few more holidays.

If government workers can get of Columbus day, MLK day, I think we can afford to take off election day.

 

[Pogo]

This will be the fate of any bill they try to pass to eliminate the Electoral College.

What the fuck does that image even mean?

Doesn't matter ---- you don't "pass a bill" to eliminate the Electoral College. Ever had a civics class?

 

[Pogo]

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....

We have that here too, but what about the people who work 35 miles away from home? They leave very early for work; earlier than the polls open.

The only point I'm making is that I agree with Pat that it should be considered a holiday and everybody get off of work. Hell, we work the most hours in this country compared to other industrialized nations. We could use a few more holidays.

If government workers can get of Columbus day, MLK day, I think we can afford to take off election day.

I work WAY more than 35 miles from home and it doesn't slow me down. Again, that's the whole POINT of early voting, so you don't need to wear out your Tuesday. You go on another day.

There's no reason we can't do both -- have voting be a holiday (or simpler, just do it on a Saturday) AND have an early voting period for those who don't happen to be home on that Saturday or whenever it is.

 

[Pogo]

...

As opposed to a candidate who manages to be corrupt, incompetent AND an asshole, who seems to feel entitled to the Oval Orifice simply because he's an elitist schmuck who's been handed everything all his life while taking zero responsibility for anything....

I thought you liked Hillary?

Than I saw "he".

Tell me, what Hillary earned in her life, and name one thing she took responsibility for?

Fun fact: Remember Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, those "swing" states that went "red" and sent 100% of their EVs to Rump? In NONE of them could Rump even get 50% of the state's vote. Same thing in my state.

I live in Michigan, and other than having two Dem Senators, and Dem Governor, US Congress is 7-7 split, but Michigan itself is still solid red. It's similar in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. What's your point?

How would I know? Put the rest of the post back that you CUT OUT and I'll tell you what the point was.

 

[Pogo]

I agree. I always thought america was a democracy...but when Bush Jr got elected we the citizens of the world were shocked. And that's when we found about the electoral college. It really gives the power to the crazy minority and that's why we have trump and his crazies....the US should join the democratic countries and abolish the EC.

Interesting concept...you want the US...with one of the longest standing democracies in world history to change the system that's given us that stability to mirror the rest of the world that sees coups and civil unrest as a matter of course? I'm guessing you don't have the faintest idea WHY the Electoral College was instituted in the first place...do you, Issa?

The US is not a democracy.

The US is a democracy...we choose to operate that democracy as a constitutional republic...which is a blend of power derived from democratic processes...power held by elected officials...and power held by a court system.

My point remains...do you really think the US should scrap a system that has worked for hundreds of years simply because the candidate you wanted didn't get elected in a Presidential race?

"A system that has worked"? Sorry, thought we were talking about the EC here.

"Worked" by immediately disenfranchising up to half, or in myriad cases more than half, of a state's voters, thereby depressing voter turnout because "fuck it, what's the point"?

"Worked" by perpetuating the Duopoly, shutting out any third party and producing a never-ending torrent of Bad vs Worse, requiring the electorate to vote not FOR one but AGAINST the other?

"Worked" by setting up a system where the only way for a third party to compete is to siphon off enough votes to deny any one a majority thereby tossing the whole election into the House, thus nullifying the entire election process itself?

"Worked" by rendering the act of going to vote completely pointless in any so-called "red" or "blue" state?

"Worked" by making any state that isn't dedicated "red" or "blue" dependent on polls to find out whether it's worth getting out of bed on election day?

"Worked" by ensuring that no candidate will ever bother appearing in those so-called "red"/"blue" states because either they, or their opponent, has it in the bag, making that state a predetermined outcome?

"Worked" by outliving all of its reasons for existence since there is no more "Slave Power", communication is far more wide-reaching than it was in 1780, and states have already passed actual laws dictating how their electors shall vote, taking the conscience element out? What's left?

"Worked" by creating artificial concepts of "red states" and "blue states" thereby pitting states and people AGAINST each other? What could possibly go wrong with that idea.

If that's "working", it's time to break something.

Every voting system would disenfranchise up to a half. You just don't like that your side lost by using the system that protects interests of the small states.

Once AGAIN --- there is no "side" who "won" or "lost". This is about the operation of a system. Every, and I mean EVERY time you klowns try to derail this issue into cherrypicked specifics y'all expose yourselves as dishonest hacks.

What in the wide world of blue FUCK is so goddam scary about addressing the issue itself?

"Disenfranchise" does not mean "what side lost", Hack. It means --- as I just laid out over and over and you keep ignoring --- that (e.g.) my state goes to Congress and lies its ass off that my state voted unanimously for X. NO STATE EVER has done that. That means one candidate gets overrepresented and the rest get DUMPED. And that happens *EVERY* election REGARDLESS whether anyone I voted for or against "won" or "lost".

Holy; Fucking. SHIT.

I can't explain math ---- not even math but simple COUNTING ---- to you if you're going to sit here and play the part of dishonest hack, and I'll tell you right now you're one post away from going back on ignore. Deal with the issue or go there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I call them whatever I want. And to be honest, most people refer to them the exact same way.

 

[Pogo]

Republicans don't want the presidential election decided by popular vote because their ideas aren't popular.

Suppressing what the people want is the only way Republicans can maintain power.

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, Hillary didn't win the popular vote.

Yeah actually she did. By a lot.
And unlike your claim, I can link this one.

I can link you to an image for my receipt for Jimmy Johns sandwich I had for lunch today.

To prevent mods from deleting this (again), I have to clarify... that receipt is as relevant to presidential elections as national popular vote.

Once AGAIN your bogus claim was, and I QUOTE you here --- "It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, Hillary didn't win the popular vote.". I simply pointed out that that's provably BULLSHIT, and you can't handle it.

You appear to have just two problems with reading comprehension. Those would be letters and numbers.