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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

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.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A totally ignorant President.
Ignorant Trump Promises To Defend Article 12 Of Constitution (There Are Only 7)

You missed the context. He would defend EVERYTHING in the Constitution! Dumb ass!

Your web site is a dumb ass web site.

Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
Trump said it. It’s well known that Trump is ignorant about the Constitution.
Trump Time Capsule #35: Two Corinthians, and Twelve Constitution

Do we really have to drag out the 57 states comment again?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.

View attachment 156970

And that means what?
I never voted for Obama or anyone with the last name of Clinton. I also did not vote for Dotard Trump, who is even worse at being president, than I ever imagined. It's just plain scary.
I know you goose-steppers can't quite handle the fact, that there are people that seriously think for themselves and don't need a very narrow ideology to tell them what to think and what to say.

So you don't vote. That's probably very good for the country.

I think he's a New Zealander.

Actually, I'm a nationalized US citizen with dual citizenship.

No. You are not.

You might be a naturalized US citizen, but not nationalized.

 

[KatieK]

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

Majority rule is a disaster. When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!

 

[KatieK]

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

Majority rule is a disaster. When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!

Guess you must be ruled by your betters? Not hard to find those.

Seems like we don't even need elections in your Trumpland fantasy? All Trumps all the time. A new kingdom.

 

[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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state? After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule. You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island. That way, every state has power in our legislative process.

 

[KatieK]

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state? After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule. You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island. That way, every state has power in our legislative process.

Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas? Answer, they shouldn't.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

Majority rule is a disaster. When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!

Guess you must be ruled by your betters? Not hard to find those.

Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?

Why can't you address the content of the post? You accused me of trolling earlier! It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!

It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!

Is your hair perchance blonde? If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state? After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule. You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island. That way, every state has power in our legislative process.

Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas? Answer, they shouldn't.

Answer: so that all states are equal. With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.

 

[KatieK]

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state? After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule. You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island. That way, every state has power in our legislative process.

Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas? Answer, they shouldn't.

Answer: so that all states are equal. With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.

Good. That's as it should be. One man one vote.

If you oppose democracy go live under a king.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state? After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule. You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island. That way, every state has power in our legislative process.

Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas? Answer, they shouldn't.

It is designed to offset their relative lack of the state's representation in the House.

This is a perfect example of why I know you haven't been to high school yet and learned about the Great Compromise at the Constitutional Convention.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state? After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule. You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island. That way, every state has power in our legislative process.

Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas? Answer, they shouldn't.

Answer: so that all states are equal. With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.

Good. That's as it should be. One man one vote.

If you oppose democracy go live under a king.

Did you know the word "democracy" never appears in the Constitution? Of course you didn't! You have never read it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state? After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule. You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island. That way, every state has power in our legislative process.

Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas? Answer, they shouldn't.

Answer: so that all states are equal. With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.

Good. That's as it should be. One man one vote.

If you oppose democracy go live under a king.

It doesn't matter if I oppose democracy or not because we live in a Republic.

 

[KatieK]

I

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

Majority rule is a disaster. When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!

Guess you must be ruled by your betters? Not hard to find those.

Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?

Why can't you address the content of the post? You accused me of trolling earlier! It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!

It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!

Is your hair perchance blonde? If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.

The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.

 

[KatieK]

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state? After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule. You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island. That way, every state has power in our legislative process.

Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas? Answer, they shouldn't.

Answer: so that all states are equal. With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.

Good. That's as it should be. One man one vote.

If you oppose democracy go live under a king.

Did you know the word "democracy" never appears in the Constitution? Of course you didn't! You have never read it.

Did you know you are completely against democracy, like all fascists?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I

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.

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

Majority rule is a disaster. When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!

Guess you must be ruled by your betters? Not hard to find those.

Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?

Why can't you address the content of the post? You accused me of trolling earlier! It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!

It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!

Is your hair perchance blonde? If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.

The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled b y an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.

Why do I need to ruled by an elite? We have no rulers in the country. If we had rulers, we would be subjects.

Is there no end to you political ignorance?

 

[KatieK]

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state? After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule. You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island. That way, every state has power in our legislative process.

Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas? Answer, they shouldn't.

Answer: so that all states are equal. With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.

Good. That's as it should be. One man one vote.

If you oppose democracy go live under a king.

It doesn't matter if I oppose democracy or not because we live in a Republic.

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

 

[KatieK]

I

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence. Size matters, boys. When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".

Majority rule is a disaster. When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!

Guess you must be ruled by your betters? Not hard to find those.

Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?

Why can't you address the content of the post? You accused me of trolling earlier! It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!

It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!

Is your hair perchance blonde? If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.

The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled b y an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.

Why do I need to ruled by an elite? We have no rulers in the country. If we had rulers, we would be subjects.

Is there no end to you political ignorance?

You are a subject, and a slave. You made yourself one,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.

In a majority rule, the minority is not protected. That's what majority vote is all about.