Fun With Numbers (re: Popular Vote)

[NYcarbineer]

One vote in California is no different than one vote in Wyoming.

And once the Electoral College goes to a candidate, all the additional votes in the State going toward the winner don't mean shit.

Unless your tu(R)(D) loses of course.

A system where your vote can be simply abolished because of where you happen to live is not a democratic system.

If you truly want a democratic system, then there is no need for the most undemocratic entity in the system. The Supreme Court.

Why are 9 individual votes greater than a majority of hundreds of millions citizens.

You fools want majority rule. The above is exactly it.

The Supreme Court judges derive their authority via their appointment by the President

ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,

and the approval of the Senate, which is the other body in government where power disproportionately favors the small states.

Yet you can't argue that it is the least democratic entity in the system.

If you want democracy, which by its very nature requires the majority to rule as it (the mob) feels is best, then. USSC must go.

You want it or not?

The founding fathers knew that those that wanted democracy were inherently evil and self serving.

Proof enough.

Calling democracy mob rule is what certain factions do when they are trying to usurp disproportionate power for themselves.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One vote in California is no different than one vote in Wyoming.

And once the Electoral College goes to a candidate, all the additional votes in the State going toward the winner don't mean shit.

Unless your tu(R)(D) loses of course.

A system where your vote can be simply abolished because of where you happen to live is not a democratic system.

If you truly want a democratic system, then there is no need for the most undemocratic entity in the system. The Supreme Court.

Why are 9 individual votes greater than a majority of hundreds of millions citizens.

You fools want majority rule. The above is exactly it.

The Supreme Court judges derive their authority via their appointment by the President

ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,

and the approval of the Senate, which is the other body in government where power disproportionately favors the small states.

Yet you can't argue that it is the least democratic entity in the system.

If you want democracy, which by its very nature requires the majority to rule as it (the mob) feels is best, then. USSC must go.

You want it or not?

The founding fathers knew that those that wanted democracy were inherently evil and self serving.

Proof enough.

The founders were fucked up on a lot of stuff.

 

[SixFoot]

And once the Electoral College goes to a candidate, all the additional votes in the State going toward the winner don't mean shit.

Unless your tu(R)(D) loses of course.

A system where your vote can be simply abolished because of where you happen to live is not a democratic system.

If you truly want a democratic system, then there is no need for the most undemocratic entity in the system. The Supreme Court.

Why are 9 individual votes greater than a majority of hundreds of millions citizens.

You fools want majority rule. The above is exactly it.

The Supreme Court judges derive their authority via their appointment by the President

ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,

and the approval of the Senate, which is the other body in government where power disproportionately favors the small states.

Yet you can't argue that it is the least democratic entity in the system.

If you want democracy, which by its very nature requires the majority to rule as it (the mob) feels is best, then. USSC must go.

You want it or not?

The founding fathers knew that those that wanted democracy were inherently evil and self serving.

Proof enough.

Calling democracy mob rule is what certain factions do when they are trying to usurp disproportionate power for themselves.

Same with those who cry about the Electoral College when their tu(R)(D) loses 30 States plus part of Maine.

 

[Pop23]

And once the Electoral College goes to a candidate, all the additional votes in the State going toward the winner don't mean shit.

Unless your tu(R)(D) loses of course.

A system where your vote can be simply abolished because of where you happen to live is not a democratic system.

If you truly want a democratic system, then there is no need for the most undemocratic entity in the system. The Supreme Court.

Why are 9 individual votes greater than a majority of hundreds of millions citizens.

You fools want majority rule. The above is exactly it.

The Supreme Court judges derive their authority via their appointment by the President

ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,

and the approval of the Senate, which is the other body in government where power disproportionately favors the small states.

Yet you can't argue that it is the least democratic entity in the system.

If you want democracy, which by its very nature requires the majority to rule as it (the mob) feels is best, then. USSC must go.

You want it or not?

The founding fathers knew that those that wanted democracy were inherently evil and self serving.

Proof enough.

Calling democracy mob rule is what certain factions do when they are trying to usurp disproportionate power for themselves.

So what then is your argument to retain the Supreme Court then?

 

[Pop23]

And once the Electoral College goes to a candidate, all the additional votes in the State going toward the winner don't mean shit.

Unless your tu(R)(D) loses of course.

A system where your vote can be simply abolished because of where you happen to live is not a democratic system.

If you truly want a democratic system, then there is no need for the most undemocratic entity in the system. The Supreme Court.

Why are 9 individual votes greater than a majority of hundreds of millions citizens.

You fools want majority rule. The above is exactly it.

The Supreme Court judges derive their authority via their appointment by the President

ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,

and the approval of the Senate, which is the other body in government where power disproportionately favors the small states.

Yet you can't argue that it is the least democratic entity in the system.

If you want democracy, which by its very nature requires the majority to rule as it (the mob) feels is best, then. USSC must go.

You want it or not?

The founding fathers knew that those that wanted democracy were inherently evil and self serving.

Proof enough.

The founders were fucked up on a lot of stuff.

And you're smarter?

That's laughable.

 

[kaz]

Let's do a little mathematical exercise in Civics 101.

States with a population of over 10 million:

California population - 38 million
Texas - 26 million
New York population - 20 million
Florida - 20 million
Illinois - 12 million
Ohio - 11 million

That's 127 million people in just 6 out of Obama's 57 States.
There was a little over 120 million votes cast this cycle.


Clinton:
61,324,576 Total votes
5,589,936 California votes
_____________________
55,734,640 total votes, minus California


Trump:
60,526,852 Total votes (even though politico is shorting him by a few hundred thousand)
3,021,095 California votes
_____________________
57,505,757 total votes, minus California


And that, kids, is why we have an electoral college. Our President is not decided by how many babies your neighbor can poop out. The end.

Nope.

since when are citizens of California NOT citizens of the UNITED STATES? Why take them out to prove your point?

Each state is given 1 Elector, for each congressional voting district, and 2 electors for each US Senator... just like our congress is set up, which gives the advantage to less populated states in the Senate.... When they vote in the house, they don't take the 53 congressmen's vote for Calif and lump it together in to one common vote, the congressmen each have their own vote, and this is how the electors by our founders, were initially set up....

NOW our two parties have changed this process over the years to make it where each congressional district's elector's vote, does not count and winner takes all....and third parties never get any not a one, zip zilch, elector votes....

Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote, but did not get one single itty bitty electoral vote....the system is now rigged against anyone not in the two parties.

What you're upset about is that corrupt liberals in States like Illinois, New York and California give all their votes to the Democrats, they can't go out and manufacture more votes.

The FFs were very clever. Small State don't have more power than big States, you can block new laws two ways:

1) Small States have more power to block laws in the Senate
2) Large States can block laws in the House

Neither can pass laws without the other, which means we have a system which protects large and small States both from the other.

It's not that you don't know that, you do and want tyranny of the majority. It's in your way. Like it or lump it, but it's not changing

 

[Care4all]

Let's do a little mathematical exercise in Civics 101.

States with a population of over 10 million:

California population - 38 million
Texas - 26 million
New York population - 20 million
Florida - 20 million
Illinois - 12 million
Ohio - 11 million

That's 127 million people in just 6 out of Obama's 57 States.
There was a little over 120 million votes cast this cycle.


Clinton:
61,324,576 Total votes
5,589,936 California votes
_____________________
55,734,640 total votes, minus California


Trump:
60,526,852 Total votes (even though politico is shorting him by a few hundred thousand)
3,021,095 California votes
_____________________
57,505,757 total votes, minus California


And that, kids, is why we have an electoral college. Our President is not decided by how many babies your neighbor can poop out. The end.

Nope.

since when are citizens of California NOT citizens of the UNITED STATES? Why take them out to prove your point?

Each state is given 1 Elector, for each congressional voting district, and 2 electors for each US Senator... just like our congress is set up, which gives the advantage to less populated states in the Senate.... When they vote in the house, they don't take the 53 congressmen's vote for Calif and lump it together in to one common vote, the congressmen each have their own vote, and this is how the electors by our founders, were initially set up....

NOW our two parties have changed this process over the years to make it where each congressional district's elector's vote, does not count and winner takes all....and third parties never get any not a one, zip zilch, elector votes....

Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote, but did not get one single itty bitty electoral vote....the system is now rigged against anyone not in the two parties.

What you're upset about is that corrupt liberals in States like Illinois, New York and California give all their votes to the Democrats, they can't go out and manufacture more votes.

The FFs were very clever. Small State don't have more power than big States, you can block new laws two ways:

1) Small States have more power to block laws in the Senate
2) Large States can block laws in the House

Neither can pass laws without the other, which means we have a system which protects large and small States both from the other.

It's not that you don't know that, you do and want tyranny of the majority. It's in your way. Like it or lump it, but it's not changing

since when in the house of representatives do all the congressmen from 1 state have to pool their majority and then turn ALL of their congressmen's votes in to the majority's vote in their State....even if the individual congressman voted differently for his district?

congressmen represent voting DISTRICTS within a State and SO DO Electors....

THAT is the way our founders created it.... they didn't create the bull crap we have going on now...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's do a little mathematical exercise in Civics 101.

States with a population of over 10 million:

California population - 38 million
Texas - 26 million
New York population - 20 million
Florida - 20 million
Illinois - 12 million
Ohio - 11 million

That's 127 million people in just 6 out of Obama's 57 States.
There was a little over 120 million votes cast this cycle.


Clinton:
61,324,576 Total votes
5,589,936 California votes
_____________________
55,734,640 total votes, minus California


Trump:
60,526,852 Total votes (even though politico is shorting him by a few hundred thousand)
3,021,095 California votes
_____________________
57,505,757 total votes, minus California


And that, kids, is why we have an electoral college. Our President is not decided by how many babies your neighbor can poop out. The end.

One vote in California is no different than one vote in Wyoming.

CA already has way more EV that Wyoming

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I guess none of this really matters anyway, what with 2 million illegal alien votes and another million or so dead folks padding Killroy's numbers.

Agreed about California (or New York) determining who is elected President. OTOH, even though Hillary is technically about a million votes ahead, it's only about 0.62% of the total vote.

FWIW, illegals can't vote in federal elections even if some states allow them to vote in local elections.

They can't LEGALLY Vote, but Obama suborned their felon voter fraud, so it's likely that many voted

 

[kaz]

Let's do a little mathematical exercise in Civics 101.

States with a population of over 10 million:

California population - 38 million
Texas - 26 million
New York population - 20 million
Florida - 20 million
Illinois - 12 million
Ohio - 11 million

That's 127 million people in just 6 out of Obama's 57 States.
There was a little over 120 million votes cast this cycle.


Clinton:
61,324,576 Total votes
5,589,936 California votes
_____________________
55,734,640 total votes, minus California


Trump:
60,526,852 Total votes (even though politico is shorting him by a few hundred thousand)
3,021,095 California votes
_____________________
57,505,757 total votes, minus California


And that, kids, is why we have an electoral college. Our President is not decided by how many babies your neighbor can poop out. The end.

Nope.

since when are citizens of California NOT citizens of the UNITED STATES? Why take them out to prove your point?

Each state is given 1 Elector, for each congressional voting district, and 2 electors for each US Senator... just like our congress is set up, which gives the advantage to less populated states in the Senate.... When they vote in the house, they don't take the 53 congressmen's vote for Calif and lump it together in to one common vote, the congressmen each have their own vote, and this is how the electors by our founders, were initially set up....

NOW our two parties have changed this process over the years to make it where each congressional district's elector's vote, does not count and winner takes all....and third parties never get any not a one, zip zilch, elector votes....

Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote, but did not get one single itty bitty electoral vote....the system is now rigged against anyone not in the two parties.

What you're upset about is that corrupt liberals in States like Illinois, New York and California give all their votes to the Democrats, they can't go out and manufacture more votes.

The FFs were very clever. Small State don't have more power than big States, you can block new laws two ways:

1) Small States have more power to block laws in the Senate
2) Large States can block laws in the House

Neither can pass laws without the other, which means we have a system which protects large and small States both from the other.

It's not that you don't know that, you do and want tyranny of the majority. It's in your way. Like it or lump it, but it's not changing

since when in the house of representatives do all the congressmen from 1 state have to pool their majority and then turn ALL of their congressmen's votes in to the majority's vote in their State....even if the individual congressman voted differently for his district?

Never. Congressmen don't get a vote in the electoral college. What are you talking about pooling their votes? You thought congressmen vote in the electoral college?

congressmen represent voting DISTRICTS within a State and SO DO Electors....

No ... electors don't represent districts, they represent States. What are you talking about? Where do you get this?

THAT is the way our founders created it.... they didn't create the bull crap we have going on now...

The electoral college is in the Constitution created by the founding fathers. You thought it was created for Trump? What are you talking about?

I pointed out to you the founders wanted to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority. So they protected small States from large ones and vice versa. Neither can just trample the other. That's what they wanted. The electoral college was that balance in electing the President. Large States get more votes, but it's balanced.

We are using the exact system the founding fathers designed. And what you want is what they wanted to prevent, tyranny of the majority. So you can disagree with them, but they disagree with you, so do I

 

[SixFoot]

It's plain to see that the system only sucks when one side's tu(R)(D) comes out the loser.

 

[Divine Wind]

The Supreme Court judges derive their authority via their appointment by the President

ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,

and the approval of the Senate, which is the other body in government where power disproportionately favors the small states.

1)Unsurprising you're only being this up after the election.

2) Why don't you start a war over it? State with the most guns wins!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court judges derive their authority via their appointment by the President

ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,

and the approval of the Senate, which is the other body in government where power disproportionately favors the small states.

1)Unsurprising you're only being this up after the election.

2) Why don't you start a war over it? State with the most guns wins!

How do you know when I've ever brought this up?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's plain to see that the system only sucks when one side's tu(R)(D) comes out the loser.

View attachment 98740

Prove it.

 

[Divine Wind]

The Supreme Court judges derive their authority via their appointment by the President

ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,

and the approval of the Senate, which is the other body in government where power disproportionately favors the small states.

1)Unsurprising you're only being this up after the election.

2) Why don't you start a war over it? State with the most guns wins!

How do you know when I've ever brought this up?

The Supreme Court judges derive their authority via their appointment by the President

ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,

and the approval of the Senate, which is the other body in government where power disproportionately favors the small states.

1)Unsurprising you're only being this up after the election.

2) Why don't you start a war over it? State with the most guns wins!

How do you know when I've ever brought this up?

Have you brought it up before? When? Where? What were your suggestions? Was it in 2000? Do you seek a "pure" democracy where majority completely rules? Careful what you wish for. There are good reasons why the Founders were concerned about such a form of government.