They all won with less than 40% of the vote because the opposition party split its votes between two candidates.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution: The Electoral College is safe
- Thread starter The2ndAmendment
- Start date
They all won with less than 40% of the vote because the opposition party split its votes between two candidates.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
How do you know they wouldn't have been elected?
They all won with less than 40% of the vote because the opposition party split its votes between two candidates.
And they'd still have won, absent the EC.
RDD_1210
Forms his own opinions
- May 13, 2010
- 18,981
- 1,817
- 265
You're confusing popular vote with majority vote.How do you know they wouldn't have been elected?
They all won with less than 40% of the vote because the opposition party split its votes between two candidates.
They all won the popular vote which is what those who want to do away with the EC are advocating for.
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
Think of the money we'll save when only California and New York have to hold presidential elections! We could even simplify further by just letting the California legislatures function in place of the current, very costly, Congress!
/sarcastic font off
/sarcastic font off
You're confusing popular vote with majority vote.
They all won the popular vote which is what those who want to do away with the EC are advocating for.
The irony of my OP seems to have gone unnoticed. I SUPPORT the EC, if for no other reason than it maintains interstate fire walls against vote fraud. Otherwise, California and New York would simply withhold reporting their vote totals until they knew how many ballots were needed to elect their preferred candidate.
Besides, electing a President by a plurality of the popular vote is an idiotic idea on its face.
RDD_1210
Forms his own opinions
- May 13, 2010
- 18,981
- 1,817
- 265
You're confusing popular vote with majority vote.
They all won the popular vote which is what those who want to do away with the EC are advocating for.
The irony of my OP seems to have gone unnoticed. I SUPPORT the EC, if for no other reason than it maintains interstate fire walls against vote fraud. Otherwise, California and New York would simply withhold reporting their vote totals until they knew how many ballots were needed to elect their preferred candidate.
Besides, electing a President by a plurality of the popular vote is an idiotic idea on its face.
None of that changes the fact that you don't understand what the difference between popular vote and a majority vote.
Dick Foster
Platinum Member
Take from someone living in California, you won't save one damn dime and you'll end up paying more.Think of the money we'll save when only California and New York have to hold presidential elections! We could even simplify further by just letting the California legislatures function in place of the current, very costly, Congress!
/sarcastic font off
None of that changes the fact that you don't understand what the difference between popular vote and a majority vote.
Trying to venture into triple digit IQ territory again?
Popular vote and majority vote are separate concepts, so there is no "difference" between them. However, there IS a difference between a plurality and a majority. Look it up.
- Banned
- #230
The EC was and still is a very good idea.
Yup and that's why the FF's put it in the Constitution. They were very wise, far seeing men.
People that own human slaves are NOT wise.
The EC was and still is a very good idea.
Yup and that's why the FF's put it in the Constitution. They were very wise, far seeing men.
People that own human slaves are NOT wise.
A hell of a lot wiser than your stupid ass.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 55,907
- 56,259
- 3,605
Lincoln, Wilson and Clinton would never have been elected President.
Maybe it's not such a great idea after all...
Unless you want California and New York to decide every Presidential candidate, you will think it's a good idea.
It is nothing short of brilliant really.
- Banned
- #233
The EC was and still is a very good idea.
Yup and that's why the FF's put it in the Constitution. They were very wise, far seeing men.
People that own human slaves are NOT wise.
A hell of a lot wiser than your stupid ass.
Sorry bitch but I never owned another human; that would be unwise, IMO.
Polishprince
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2016
- 45,802
- 35,399
- 3,615
Lincoln, Wilson and Clinton would never have been elected President.
Maybe it's not such a great idea after all...
I don't think you can assume that at all. If we didn't have the electoral college, those candidates would have run different races and different strategies.
blackhawk
Diamond Member
They were wiser than the majority of today’s so called leaders. They were not perfect and products of the era in which lived but they created a country and a system of electing the President congressional representatives that has survived and worked well for over 200 years. I highly doubt any of the numbnuts of today can come up with something better.The EC was and still is a very good idea.
Yup and that's why the FF's put it in the Constitution. They were very wise, far seeing men.
People that own human slaves are NOT wise.
Sorry bitch but I never owned another human; that would be unwise, IMO.
How about your ancestors, Brainiac? How far back do you want to go?
I don't think you can assume that at all. If we didn't have the electoral college, those candidates would have run different races and different strategies.
How so?
- Banned
- #238
Sorry bitch but I never owned another human; that would be unwise, IMO.
How about your ancestors, Brainiac? How far back do you want to go?
Why are you bringing my family into this?
Trying to breech the no family attack rule, or what?
TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 93,244
- 55,277
- 2,605
Considering history, history beyond your mental hackery, we probably all have ancestors that owned a slave.Sorry bitch but I never owned another human; that would be unwise, IMO.
How about your ancestors, Brainiac? How far back do you want to go?
Why are you bringing my family into this?
Trying to breech the no family attack rule, or what?
Stop being such a fucking pussy.
- Banned
- #240
Considering history, history beyond your mental hackery, we probably all have ancestors that owned a slave.Sorry bitch but I never owned another human; that would be unwise, IMO.
How about your ancestors, Brainiac? How far back do you want to go?
Why are you bringing my family into this?
Trying to breech the no family attack rule, or what?
Stop being such a fucking pussy.
None of my family were slave owners.
My ancestors came here from Scotland & Germany, were poor, and had no potential to own other humans.
Happy now?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 53
- Views
- 527
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 409
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 165
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 189
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 254
- Replies
- 150
- Views
- 658
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8411
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 478
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-