New DNC President Demostrates Democrats Spew Ignorance and Lies (Electoral College)

[KatieK]

But you felt the need to say that instead of shutting the fuck up? Next time just shut it.

oh don't scare me...


boring to the max you are.

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.

.........

there. there.....

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control

sheep ^^^^

you are nothing but a commicrat sheep......

Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again

 

[skye]

oh don't scare me...


boring to the max you are.

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.

.........

there. there.....

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control

sheep ^^^^

you are nothing but a commicrat sheep......

Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again

sheeple

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.

.........

there. there.....

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control

sheep ^^^^

you are nothing but a commicrat sheep......

Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again

sheeple

the new DNC Chairman is actually less intelligent than a typical TitMouse

 

[KatieK]

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.

.........

there. there.....

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control

sheep ^^^^

you are nothing but a commicrat sheep......

Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again

sheeple

You somehow manage to suck even as a troll. And the EC needs to be shitcanned and its last piece of garbage Trump with it.

 

[skye]

.........

there. there.....

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control

sheep ^^^^

you are nothing but a commicrat sheep......

Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again

sheeple

You somehow manage to suck even as a troll. And the EC needs to be shitcanned and its last piece of garbage Trump with it.

baaaaaaaaa

 

[easyt65]

The DNC had a chairwoman who ran her own Pakistani spy ring and jeopardized our Natl security...

They ran a criminal and traitor for President..

...and now has someone this (Constitutionally) STUPID as their newest DNC chairman...

Bwuhahahaha...

'Nuff Said!

 

[Leo123]

Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.

Clinton is NOT President...You don't seem to be.dealing with it very well. I know how you feel, I felt the same way for the past 8 years when the 'clean black man' (as racist Democrats called him) was their sock puppet who danced to the Hillary Hoo Down.

Clinton isn't president, we'd still be a decent nation if she was. Oh well, that's life.

The Clintons are both indecent, smug, pompous, and criminal. Thank God they're not in office. Now all we need to do is rid the U.S. of their influence. Both should already be in jail. Billy for rape, Hillary for treason and both for ripping off people in Whitewater.

 

[Leo123]

oh don't scare me...


boring to the max you are.

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.

.........

there. there.....

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control

sheep ^^^^

you are nothing but a commicrat sheep......

Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again

Ha! Ha! Marxists whine about 'class conflict' when they are the ones creating the classes. You commie dumbos are are so stupid you don't even realize YOU are the bourgeoisie. The Proletariat comprise geographic America and it is they who put Trump in office. How can you be so stupid?

 

[Pogo]

English, please?

Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?

English, please?

That was English.

Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?

nope, system works fine.

May not always agree with it, but it works.

Question for you...

Should the desires of the majority of states matter?

Answer for you: "No".

Voters register to vote --- not 'states'. When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
All men are created equal; all states are not.

My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump. Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".

And that's utter bullshit. And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there. The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
"wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton. Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote". And that's the exact same bullshit.

Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all. Their state is already decided. They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.

Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system --- will have their votes dumped in the trash.

And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, forever. If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.

I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.

you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?

I don't.

Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously. That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.

What don't you GET about that?

What don't YOU get that your way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?

Wrong again.

"States deciding the Presidency" is exactly what the EC system already does. And the WTA approach, which 48 of the 50 states use and the other two use WTA-lite --- completely fucks that up. James Madison could see that. That's why he wanted to abolish it.

 

[Pogo]

That was English.


nope, system works fine.

May not always agree with it, but it works.

Question for you...

Should the desires of the majority of states matter?

Answer for you: "No".

Voters register to vote --- not 'states'. When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
All men are created equal; all states are not.

My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump. Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".

And that's utter bullshit. And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there. The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
"wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton. Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote". And that's the exact same bullshit.

Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all. Their state is already decided. They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.

Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system --- will have their votes dumped in the trash.

And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, forever. If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.

I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.

you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?

I don't.

Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously. That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.

What don't you GET about that?

What don't YOU get that your way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?

If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter? Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.

Exactly. That's why I ask him if he's advocating forced relocations.

If a Rump voter in California, whose vote is immediately tossed in the trash by the WTA, simply moves to Utah ---- suddenly his vote counts after all. Same voter, same vote. Makes no sense.

 

[Pogo]

If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.

To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected. At least we on the right are trying to change our politics. Actually, it's been going on for some time between the Tea Party types and the Establishment. The Democrats are one solid party. One thinks like the next hundred of them. Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.

I don't think that's even close.

Will Rogers put it this way --- "I do not belong to an organized political party; I am a Democrat".
And that was in the '30s.

This returns us right back to the pitfall of operating under a Duopoly and a system that shuts out all competition (in this discussion, the WTA system) --- any given voter who may not identify with either iteration of that Duopoly, is left with the Hobson's Choice of either running with the lesser of two evils, or being shut out of the process altogether.

And considering that the largest political party body in the country is "None" --- that's highly significant. And as long as that system is allowed to perpetuate itself ----- nothing will change.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.

Trump won the presidency. Deal with that.

I am, and I'm watching him destroy the office and ruin the standing of American all over the globe. A weak man leading an even weaker nation.

Well get used to it because it's going to be that way for another three years and probably seven.

Not a chance in hell. Most people already hate him including many who voted for him.

Nope. Most of the people that voted for him are quite satisfied. A great economy, great judges, lowest border crossings in years, strong stock market, great unemployment numbers, and that includes first time unemployment filers. Everything is great as far as we're concerned. Don't let those bogus polls tell you differently:

Poll: 4 of 10 voters are 'silent Trump supporters'

 

[Pogo]

Answer for you: "No".

Voters register to vote --- not 'states'. When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
All men are created equal; all states are not.

My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump. Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".

And that's utter bullshit. And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there. The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
"wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton. Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote". And that's the exact same bullshit.

Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all. Their state is already decided. They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.

Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system --- will have their votes dumped in the trash.

And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, forever. If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.

I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.

you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?

I don't.

Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously. That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.

What don't you GET about that?

What don't YOU get that your way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?

If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter? Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.

as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.

one person= one vote?

they dont'.

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.

Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?


Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

You're making the case against yourself here.

We haven't touched on it, having plenty of other ammo, but another bleeding scab of the WTA system is that voters in those locked-red or locked-blue states get zero interaction with Presidential candidates, for the same reason their voters don't have any reason to go vote --- it's already decided. There's no point in Democrat campaigning in Alabama and no point in a Republican campaigning in Massachusetts. They might as well not exist.

That's just friggin' stoopid. We're supposed to be selecting a chief executive here, not marketing a fucking floor cleaner. And besides perpetuating a Duopoly it also perpetuates the division of "two Americas", a "red" one and a "blue" one. That's another waste product of the WTA. Yeah good job there.

So those two candidates, in any year at all, will focus all their time in whatever small handful of states that are designated by polls as "swing states", which is a completely bullshit concept that, again --- would not exist were it not for the scourge of the WTA.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.

To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected. At least we on the right are trying to change our politics. Actually, it's been going on for some time between the Tea Party types and the Establishment. The Democrats are one solid party. One thinks like the next hundred of them. Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.

I don't think that's even close.

Will Rogers put it this way --- "I do not belong to an organized political party; I am a Democrat".
And that was in the '30s.

This returns us right back to the pitfall of operating under a Duopoly and a system that shuts out all competition (in this discussion, the WTA system) --- any given voter who may not identify with either iteration of that Duopoly, is left with the Hobson's Choice of either running with the lesser of two evils, or being shut out of the process altogether.

And considering that the largest political party body in the country is "None" --- that's highly significant. And as long as that system is allowed to perpetuate itself ----- nothing will change.

I think it is changing. Trump beat out mostly establishment and professional politicians. The people are speaking to the party. It's just a matter of time when they start listening.

The Democrat party of the 30's, 40's, 50's is not the Democrat party of today. And I don't know what a WTA system is.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously. That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.

What don't you GET about that?

What don't YOU get that your way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?

If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter? Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.

as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.

one person= one vote?

they dont'.

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.

Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?


Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

Okay! Now I get it. If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner. Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
The EC is, imo, a thing of the past. I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them. It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.

A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess. Imagine if it were popular vote only. Then the candidate would have no reason to visit your state. He would have no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once he became President. He would have no concern about using your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.

The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing. Less populated states like yours have more power with the EC than it would have with a popular vote. I mean, if you live in a state with 3 million people, you have to assume that less than 2 million are of voting age, and out of that 2 million, less than one million actually vote.

Yet another post undermining its own position.

Ironically Maine is one of only two states that does not use the WTA system, however it uses a microcosm version of the same thing (Congressional districts), so within that microcosm exists the same fault ---- namely, that any voter who doesn't fall into lockstep with his "EC/WTA unit" (in Maine's case the district, in most states the entire state) --- has no reason to go vote because his or her vote is going to be immediatley tossed in the trash can anyway.

Don't y'all GET that having only 55% of the electorate show up for an election is an abysmally poor showing? Don't y'all GET why that is?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What don't YOU get that your way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?

If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter? Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.

as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.

one person= one vote?

they dont'.

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.

Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?


Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

Okay! Now I get it. If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner. Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
The EC is, imo, a thing of the past. I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them. It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.

A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess. Imagine if it were popular vote only. Then the candidate would have no reason to visit your state. He would have no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once he became President. He would have no concern about using your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.

The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing. Less populated states like yours have more power with the EC than it would have with a popular vote. I mean, if you live in a state with 3 million people, you have to assume that less than 2 million are of voting age, and out of that 2 million, less than one million actually vote.

Yet another post undermining its own position.

Ironically Maine is one of only two states that does not use the WTA system, however it uses a microcosm version of the same thing (Congressional districts), so within that microcosm exists the same fault ---- namely, that any voter who doesn't fall into lockstep with his "EC/WTA unit" (in Maine's case the district, in most states the entire state) --- has no reason to go vote because his or her vote is going to be immediatley tossed in the trash can anyway.

Don't y'all GET that having only 55% of the electorate show up for an election is an abysmally poor showing? Don't y'all GET why that is?

We know why that is. It's because people don't take elections seriously. In some cases, people get so pissed off that they want to show their party how angry they are by not voting. This was prevalent in the last election. Many Republicans were pissed off because Trump became the nominee. Same thing with the Democrat party. Hillary is not a very liked person. Trump made up for lost voters by newly registered voters that signed on just to vote for him.

Now you talk about people feeling disenfranchised because they live in a red or blue state. How do you think the rest of the country would feel if only four or five states decided the election? What would be the purpose for the other states to get out and vote?

 

[Pogo]

If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.

To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected. At least we on the right are trying to change our politics. Actually, it's been going on for some time between the Tea Party types and the Establishment. The Democrats are one solid party. One thinks like the next hundred of them. Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.

I don't think that's even close.

Will Rogers put it this way --- "I do not belong to an organized political party; I am a Democrat".
And that was in the '30s.

This returns us right back to the pitfall of operating under a Duopoly and a system that shuts out all competition (in this discussion, the WTA system) --- any given voter who may not identify with either iteration of that Duopoly, is left with the Hobson's Choice of either running with the lesser of two evils, or being shut out of the process altogether.

And considering that the largest political party body in the country is "None" --- that's highly significant. And as long as that system is allowed to perpetuate itself ----- nothing will change.

I think it is changing. Trump beat out mostly establishment and professional politicians. The people are speaking to the party. It's just a matter of time when they start listening.

The Democrat party of the 30's, 40's, 50's is not the Democrat party of today. And I don't know what a WTA system is.

"WTA" is what this whole thread is about ---- the "Winner Take All" system used by the Electrical College. That's why I keep noting how it throws votes in the trash. That's what the speaker in the cherrypicked sound clip in the OP is talking about. That's why I noted as soon as the thread went up, that the context was deliberately edited out.

Rump did run, and find success, as a not-part-of-the-system actor, but used the same Duopoly to get elected. Sanders tried to do the same thing but the System locked the door. Neither one chops down the system --- it just introduces new blood into the same system.

It also recalls Rump's errant tweets calling for "revolution in this country" when he was under the mistaken impression that Mitt Romney had won the popular vote but lost the EC. Another case of selective logic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.

To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected. At least we on the right are trying to change our politics. Actually, it's been going on for some time between the Tea Party types and the Establishment. The Democrats are one solid party. One thinks like the next hundred of them. Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.

I don't think that's even close.

Will Rogers put it this way --- "I do not belong to an organized political party; I am a Democrat".
And that was in the '30s.

This returns us right back to the pitfall of operating under a Duopoly and a system that shuts out all competition (in this discussion, the WTA system) --- any given voter who may not identify with either iteration of that Duopoly, is left with the Hobson's Choice of either running with the lesser of two evils, or being shut out of the process altogether.

And considering that the largest political party body in the country is "None" --- that's highly significant. And as long as that system is allowed to perpetuate itself ----- nothing will change.

I think it is changing. Trump beat out mostly establishment and professional politicians. The people are speaking to the party. It's just a matter of time when they start listening.

The Democrat party of the 30's, 40's, 50's is not the Democrat party of today. And I don't know what a WTA system is.

"WTA" is what this whole thread is about ---- the "Winner Take All" system used by the Electrical College. That's why I keep noting how it throws votes in the trash. That's what the speaker in the cherrypicked sound clip in the OP is talking about. That's why I noted as soon as the thread went up, that the context was deliberately edited out.

Rump did run, and find success, as a not-part-of-the-system actor, but used the same Duopoly to get elected. Sanders tried to do the same thing but the System locked the door. Neither one chops down the system --- it just introduces new blood into the same system.

There are only two ways to vote: The EC system which has worked fine for us the last couple of centuries, or the WTA as you call it. Either way, not everybody will have their vote counted. Either way, there will be people that don't bother to vote because it's a waste of time as far as they are concerned.

 

[Pogo]

If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter? Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.

as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.

one person= one vote?

they dont'.

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.

Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?


Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

Okay! Now I get it. If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner. Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
The EC is, imo, a thing of the past. I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them. It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.

A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess. Imagine if it were popular vote only. Then the candidate would have no reason to visit your state. He would have no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once he became President. He would have no concern about using your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.

The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing. Less populated states like yours have more power with the EC than it would have with a popular vote. I mean, if you live in a state with 3 million people, you have to assume that less than 2 million are of voting age, and out of that 2 million, less than one million actually vote.

Yet another post undermining its own position.

Ironically Maine is one of only two states that does not use the WTA system, however it uses a microcosm version of the same thing (Congressional districts), so within that microcosm exists the same fault ---- namely, that any voter who doesn't fall into lockstep with his "EC/WTA unit" (in Maine's case the district, in most states the entire state) --- has no reason to go vote because his or her vote is going to be immediatley tossed in the trash can anyway.

Don't y'all GET that having only 55% of the electorate show up for an election is an abysmally poor showing? Don't y'all GET why that is?

We know why that is. It's because people don't take elections seriously. In some cases, people get so pissed off that they want to show their party how angry they are by not voting. This was prevalent in the last election. Many Republicans were pissed off because Trump became the nominee. Same thing with the Democrat party. Hillary is not a very liked person. Trump made up for lost voters by newly registered voters that signed on just to vote for him.

Please. Then why are other countries with actual representative systems seeing 80 and 90 percent participation? You don't think other countries have not-well-liked politicians?

Now you talk about people feeling disenfranchised because they live in a red or blue state. How do you think the rest of the country would feel if only four or five states decided the election? What would be the purpose for the other states to get out and vote?

This lame argument of "X number of states deciding an election" has never made a lick of sense. It still doesn't.

How many millions of votes did Rump get in California? In New York? I don't have the number any more and don't feel like looking it up but let's say it's "umpteen million". How many of those umpteen million votes actually counted? ZERO, that's how many. That's because the Electors of California and New York went to Congress and lied, "wow, literally everybody in our state voted for Hillary Clinton". Which is bullshit.

Now --- how many Californians and New Yorkers would have voted for Rump but didn't bother because they KNEW their vote was not going to count, so what's the point?

There's your 45% staying home. That's where it's coming from.

The further dimension is that how many -- in any state --- would have voted for Gary Johnson, or some other third party, but saw no point because regardless which way their state ended up it was going Duopoly? How many umpteen million voters voted for Hillary only because she was not Rump, or for Rump because he was not Hillary? How many voters are doing nothing more than playing Tic Tac Toe to BLOCK a candy they want to prevent?

"Voting to block" --- another scourge that would not exist without WTA.

And there's your perpetuation of the same system. The WTA EC makes it impossible to have anything BUT a Duopoly system.

 

[Pogo]

A democratic republic. We are not Rome, just very close.

Yes, democracy gets to choose the representatives, but it does not mean the majority rules. The representative votes or legislates the way he or she deems necessary.

Untrue here, where the majority did not get their elected representative in the top spot.

No, the majority of each state got their candidate in. The EC of each state voted according to the will of the voters.

STILL bullshit.

I'll keep saying this until it sinks in --- my state, considered a "battleground state", meaning The Polls demanded attention since it could have gone either way --- when the votes were counted, went to Congress and lied "Wow, it's amazing -- the entire state of North Carolina voted for Rump".

And that's bullshit. We did no such thing. Nor did any other state vote unanimously for ANYBODY. Ever.