Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As I've said all along, I have NO problem with changes or amendments to it. But the comment of 'snubbing their noses' is for those who want to take it away completely and that I do NOT support.
It's also complete non sequitur. Nothing I've posted has anything to do with noses or snubbing. It has absolutely to do with giving a deserved voice to people like you.
Again --- I had a vote; you did not. And I'm not OK with that.
Just because the electoral vote screws some of the population, doesn't mean it should be thrown out entirely. AGAIN, changed or amended YES. Tossed, NO
Things get thrown out all the time. The "Three Fifths Compromise" was thrown out. The excepting of women from the electoral process was thrown out. Alcohol was thrown out by one Amendment, and then that Amendment was thrown out by a subsequent one.
However I think there's still a law on the books in Tennessee or somewhere that requires if a woman is driving a car she has to be preceded by a man waving a red flag to warn people.
But hey we can't throw things out.
In order to keep something and NOT throw it out, its existence has to be justified. If it can be justified --- it stays.
Here, tell ya what.....just talk to the handBut I'll be nice enough to just agree to disagree, and then invoke my ignore feature. Congratulations!
See what I mean? Can't be justified. If it could you'd have a response more intelligent than the Finger. But I understand your purpose the entire time you've been on this site has been to resist anything I say even when you don't have an argument. That's your problem, not mine. By the way are we married yet?
With all due respect we're straying from your topic and there's already a thread on the EC and its effects (which is here), where nobody has come up with a justification there either -- although I'm not sure anyone has made the The Finger argument. But to your original point, the way in which the individual states pick their elecors, and how they execute it, is up to each individual state according to the Constitution as I posted yesterday and Montrovant went into as well. So it would seem that within the structure we have at present, the avenue for change is through each individual state Legislature. For all 57 states.
Precisely.As an Alaskan I'm already "discounted" as far as the vote of the country goes, but like hell I want to be California. Going by population alone Alaska might as well leave the damn country because we'll /never/ have a say in anything. Why the hell should we Alaskan's be part of a system that consistently ignores our wishes? So the Californian's can give /their/ people all the welfare and free shit while us Alaskan's work our asses off to pay for it? Fuck that.
don't argue that it needs changing, but I do acknowledge the fact that the Founding Fathers had put it in place for a reason. To ensure against 'mob rule' that would happen if just left to the popular vote only. Yes, both come down to the same end......but both are still necessary.
There was also the element of regionality, that one candidate shouldn't run up the score by amassing a big vote in a limited region. But that's clearly out the window by now; just have a look at the red and blue maps we're all familiar with and you've got a checkerboard of concentrated regions so it clearly doesn't work to do that. In fact the EC is the only reason that red and blue map, and the polarization it presents, EXISTS.
See. . . that's where you short sighted partisanship is not allowing you to see the statistical truth of the big picture.
One candidate CAN run up the score by amassing a big vote in limited regions. That is exactly what Clinton did in this last election. Her supporters very much would like Chicago, NY, LA, and every other metropolitan area to decide policy for the rest of the nation. (Just look at the county map I have posted.)
The electoral college decidedly puts the breaks on the unfairness of a minority of counties in the US dictating policies for all the rest of the counties in the US.
Voting SHOULD NOT be based solely on the number of votes, but also on where those votes originate. IF they do not continue using this system, than it should be up to states to decide to leave the Union if they do not like the outcome of the election. How would an entirely rural state benefit from a President that was elected by voters who were appealed to by someone that knew nothing but metropolitan values, culture and policy?
Here I seen this, and it does explain it to some point. I still do think the electoral college could use a bit of updating so that it would include everyone's vote in a way that everyone does feel as if their votes counted. As those of us in the west, including Alaska & Hawaii, since most if not all elections are concluded before our votes are counted or polls have closed.
The arguments that without the EC only heavy populated cities would determine the whole election for the nation....is actually what happens in many states. Do any states divide their electors according to the number of votes cast for each party? Not that I am aware of, it still goes to the popular vote & winner take all, but on a state level.....yes?
Could Electoral College Elect Clinton?
Here I seen this, and it does explain it to some point. I still do think the electoral college could use a bit of updating so that it would include everyone's vote in a way that everyone does feel as if their votes counted. As those of us in the west, including Alaska & Hawaii, since most if not all elections are concluded before our votes are counted or polls have closed.
The arguments that without the EC only heavy populated cities would determine the whole election for the nation....is actually what happens in many states. Do any states divide their electors according to the number of votes cast for each party? Not that I am aware of, it still goes to the popular vote & winner take all, but on a state level.....yes?
Could Electoral College Elect Clinton?
I actually agree with you on this one.. It's not fair about the time change but then again most west coast states vote for democrats.. That's why you guys live there. That's why I moved to South Carolina so I don't have to waste my time to vote..
.
Here I seen this, and it does explain it to some point. I still do think the electoral college could use a bit of updating so that it would include everyone's vote in a way that everyone does feel as if their votes counted. As those of us in the west, including Alaska & Hawaii, since most if not all elections are concluded before our votes are counted or polls have closed.
The arguments that without the EC only heavy populated cities would determine the whole election for the nation....is actually what happens in many states. Do any states divide their electors according to the number of votes cast for each party? Not that I am aware of, it still goes to the popular vote & winner take all, but on a state level.....yes?
Could Electoral College Elect Clinton?
I actually agree with you on this one.. It's not fair about the time change but then again most west coast states vote for democrats.. That's why you guys live there. That's why I moved to South Carolina so I don't have to waste my time to vote..
.
But see, I'm neither......I just vote for who I think is a better candidate or more representative of my values. Some years Republican, some Democrat & even some outsider.
What I would love to see for the EC.......is to divide the Electors for each state based on percentage of the actual votes...so that no state is 100% one party or the other.
Here I seen this, and it does explain it to some point. I still do think the electoral college could use a bit of updating so that it would include everyone's vote in a way that everyone does feel as if their votes counted. As those of us in the west, including Alaska & Hawaii, since most if not all elections are concluded before our votes are counted or polls have closed.
The arguments that without the EC only heavy populated cities would determine the whole election for the nation....is actually what happens in many states. Do any states divide their electors according to the number of votes cast for each party? Not that I am aware of, it still goes to the popular vote & winner take all, but on a state level.....yes?
Could Electoral College Elect Clinton?
I actually agree with you on this one.. It's not fair about the time change but then again most west coast states vote for democrats.. That's why you guys live there. That's why I moved to South Carolina so I don't have to waste my time to vote..
.
But see, I'm neither......I just vote for who I think is a better candidate or more representative of my values. Some years Republican, some Democrat & even some outsider.
What I would love to see for the EC.......is to divide the Electors for each state based on percentage of the actual votes...so that no state is 100% one party or the other.
I vote by moving... But I do agree with your point again
Here I seen this, and it does explain it to some point. I still do think the electoral college could use a bit of updating so that it would include everyone's vote in a way that everyone does feel as if their votes counted. As those of us in the west, including Alaska & Hawaii, since most if not all elections are concluded before our votes are counted or polls have closed.
The arguments that without the EC only heavy populated cities would determine the whole election for the nation....is actually what happens in many states. Do any states divide their electors according to the number of votes cast for each party? Not that I am aware of, it still goes to the popular vote & winner take all, but on a state level.....yes?
Could Electoral College Elect Clinton?
I actually agree with you on this one.. It's not fair about the time change but then again most west coast states vote for democrats.. That's why you guys live there. That's why I moved to South Carolina so I don't have to waste my time to vote..
.
But see, I'm neither......I just vote for who I think is a better candidate or more representative of my values. Some years Republican, some Democrat & even some outsider.
What I would love to see for the EC.......is to divide the Electors for each state based on percentage of the actual votes...so that no state is 100% one party or the other.
I vote by moving... But I do agree with your point again
It's just like with jobs to me the dumb assess want to do it their way good have at it I am gone and fuck you
Here I seen this, and it does explain it to some point. I still do think the electoral college could use a bit of updating so that it would include everyone's vote in a way that everyone does feel as if their votes counted. As those of us in the west, including Alaska & Hawaii, since most if not all elections are concluded before our votes are counted or polls have closed.
The arguments that without the EC only heavy populated cities would determine the whole election for the nation....is actually what happens in many states. Do any states divide their electors according to the number of votes cast for each party? Not that I am aware of, it still goes to the popular vote & winner take all, but on a state level.....yes?
Could Electoral College Elect Clinton?
I actually agree with you on this one.. It's not fair about the time change but then again most west coast states vote for democrats.. That's why you guys live there. That's why I moved to South Carolina so I don't have to waste my time to vote..
.
But see, I'm neither......I just vote for who I think is a better candidate or more representative of my values. Some years Republican, some Democrat & even some outsider.
What I would love to see for the EC.......is to divide the Electors for each state based on percentage of the actual votes...so that no state is 100% one party or the other.
I vote by moving... But I do agree with your point again
It's just like with jobs to me the dumb assess want to do it their way good have at it I am gone and fuck you
Yes I had seen your post and agree......it is hard to compete with young college grads that many companies see as 'clean slates' to train & mold to their way of doing/thinking. Even if you have more than enough experience & could out work or produce those half your age. It sucks
I actually agree with you on this one.. It's not fair about the time change but then again most west coast states vote for democrats.. That's why you guys live there. That's why I moved to South Carolina so I don't have to waste my time to vote..
.
But see, I'm neither......I just vote for who I think is a better candidate or more representative of my values. Some years Republican, some Democrat & even some outsider.
What I would love to see for the EC.......is to divide the Electors for each state based on percentage of the actual votes...so that no state is 100% one party or the other.
I vote by moving... But I do agree with your point again
It's just like with jobs to me the dumb assess want to do it their way good have at it I am gone and fuck you
Yes I had seen your post and agree......it is hard to compete with young college grads that many companies see as 'clean slates' to train & mold to their way of doing/thinking. Even if you have more than enough experience & could out work or produce those half your age. It sucks
What?
Guess you're misunderstood my posts.
College grads can't carry my tool belt.. I can't stand being in management anymore.. I was born to be a blue collar guy and work with my hands and fix the things no one else could..
That's what i excel at and to of course yell at the kids who don't know any better to just stop what they are doing otherwise it will kill them.
I never kiss ass and I hate paying liberal taxes and fuck ups
.
Ooops......now that I think of it......it may not have been you....sorry
don't argue that it needs changing, but I do acknowledge the fact that the Founding Fathers had put it in place for a reason. To ensure against 'mob rule' that would happen if just left to the popular vote only. Yes, both come down to the same end......but both are still necessary.
There was also the element of regionality, that one candidate shouldn't run up the score by amassing a big vote in a limited region. But that's clearly out the window by now; just have a look at the red and blue maps we're all familiar with and you've got a checkerboard of concentrated regions so it clearly doesn't work to do that. In fact the EC is the only reason that red and blue map, and the polarization it presents, EXISTS.
See. . . that's where you short sighted partisanship is not allowing you to see the statistical truth of the big picture.
One candidate CAN run up the score by amassing a big vote in limited regions. That is exactly what Clinton did in this last election. Her supporters very much would like Chicago, NY, LA, and every other metropolitan area to decide policy for the rest of the nation. (Just look at the county map I have posted.)
The electoral college decidedly puts the breaks on the unfairness of a minority of counties in the US dictating policies for all the rest of the counties in the US.
Voting SHOULD NOT be based solely on the number of votes, but also on where those votes originate. IF they do not continue using this system, than it should be up to states to decide to leave the Union if they do not like the outcome of the election. How would an entirely rural state benefit from a President that was elected by voters who were appealed to by someone that knew nothing but metropolitan values, culture and policy?
Thank you Pogo thinks we would of still been the United States with out it, heck no we would of looked like Europe.. The constitution and electoral college was what united us.
And it's funny the libs always botched the founding fathers had slaves and women didn't get the right to vote..
Well dumb asses society was not ready for such a drastic change at the time but the constitution had the change set in stone and in motion..
So fuck you Pogo and you trying to make the electoral college racist and take that fat ass Micheal Moore with you.
I have always been a leader and a teacher when it came to machinery
I just wished to god there was more of me out there..
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ycling-workers-death-ruled-accident/93637576/
It's also complete non sequitur. Nothing I've posted has anything to do with noses or snubbing. It has absolutely to do with giving a deserved voice to people like you.
Again --- I had a vote; you did not. And I'm not OK with that.
Just because the electoral vote screws some of the population, doesn't mean it should be thrown out entirely. AGAIN, changed or amended YES. Tossed, NO
Things get thrown out all the time. The "Three Fifths Compromise" was thrown out. The excepting of women from the electoral process was thrown out. Alcohol was thrown out by one Amendment, and then that Amendment was thrown out by a subsequent one.
However I think there's still a law on the books in Tennessee or somewhere that requires if a woman is driving a car she has to be preceded by a man waving a red flag to warn people.
But hey we can't throw things out.
In order to keep something and NOT throw it out, its existence has to be justified. If it can be justified --- it stays.
Here, tell ya what.....just talk to the hand
See what I mean? Can't be justified. If it could you'd have a response more intelligent than the Finger. But I understand your purpose the entire time you've been on this site has been to resist anything I say even when you don't have an argument. That's your problem, not mine. By the way are we married yet?
With all due respect we're straying from your topic and there's already a thread on the EC and its effects (which is here), where nobody has come up with a justification there either -- although I'm not sure anyone has made the The Finger argument. But to your original point, the way in which the individual states pick their elecors, and how they execute it, is up to each individual state according to the Constitution as I posted yesterday and Montrovant went into as well. So it would seem that within the structure we have at present, the avenue for change is through each individual state Legislature. For all 57 states.
If you really understand why it's there, you would acknowledge it is fine as it is.
don't argue that it needs changing, but I do acknowledge the fact that the Founding Fathers had put it in place for a reason. To ensure against 'mob rule' that would happen if just left to the popular vote only. Yes, both come down to the same end......but both are still necessary.
There was also the element of regionality, that one candidate shouldn't run up the score by amassing a big vote in a limited region. But that's clearly out the window by now; just have a look at the red and blue maps we're all familiar with and you've got a checkerboard of concentrated regions so it clearly doesn't work to do that. In fact the EC is the only reason that red and blue map, and the polarization it presents, EXISTS.
See. . . that's where you short sighted partisanship is not allowing you to see the statistical truth of the big picture.
One candidate CAN run up the score by amassing a big vote in limited regions. That is exactly what Clinton did in this last election. Her supporters very much would like Chicago, NY, LA, and every other metropolitan area to decide policy for the rest of the nation. (Just look at the county map I have posted.)
The electoral college decidedly puts the breaks on the unfairness of a minority of counties in the US dictating policies for all the rest of the counties in the US.
Voting SHOULD NOT be based solely on the number of votes, but also on where those votes originate. IF they do not continue using this system, than it should be up to states to decide to leave the Union if they do not like the outcome of the election. How would an entirely rural state benefit from a President that was elected by voters who were appealed to by someone that knew nothing but metropolitan values, culture and policy?
Thank you Pogo thinks we would of still been the United States with out it, heck no we would of looked like Europe.. The constitution and electoral college was what united us.
And it's funny the libs always botched the founding fathers had slaves and women didn't get the right to vote..
Well dumb asses society was not ready for such a drastic change at the time but the constitution had the change set in stone and in motion..
So fuck you Pogo and you trying to make the electoral college racist and take that fat ass Micheal Moore with you.
Perhaps someday Google Translate or Berlitz will come up with a way to translate the above to Engish but for now, "the libs always botched the founding fathers had slaves and women didn't get the right to vote" isn't even a sentence.
Anyway the fact remains the Electrical College was set up around the Three Fifths Compromise in order to artificially inflate the influence of the slaveholding South, and the fact remains that it contributed directly to six of our first seven Presidents being exactly that -- slaveholders from the South (specifically Virginia, which by virtue of counting black people as three-fifths of a person had the most influence). And it's also a fact that all that is history and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
And no, that didn't get 'changed' until we had to go through our bloodiest war ever, and there's a strong case to be made that that Southern bias helped to set up that war by that very dynamic. Just for starters.
So no ---- fuck you, clown shoes.
