Ohio Joins The Attempt To Shit on The Constitution and Eliminate The Electoral College

[Pogo]

Ah you mean like the WTA shitstem *ALREADY* makes large numbers of votes invalid entirely?

In numerous cases, making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine?

You lose by the established rules, and like a typical commie, you want to change the rules in your favor. Ain't gonna happen.

Try reading the actual post quoted.

I did, your point?

I actually have to spoon-feed this to you? Really?

The point (by Cecile) that I countered was one about disenfranchised voters under alternate systems.

That has zero to do with whatever you think I "lost", or with economic systems.
NOR do I live in Ohio.

"In numerous cases, making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine?"

Then why the tears over your vote not being on the winning side?

See why I said learn to read? I've posted NOTHING about "my vote" and nothing there refers to any "winning sides". The word "mine" refers to my state, not my vote.

Maybe you should let the poster I was countering respond. If she has one.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the constitution say you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms?
Oh - it doesn't?
Why did you lie?

Interesting point, albeit totally off topic ---- where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

Oh it doesn't?

Exactly.

Wrong answer commie, the 1st Amendment confines itself to congressional actions. "Congress shall make no law". The supreme court later came up with the incorporation doctrine to include the States.

Once AGAIN ---

Once AGAIN, *READ* the quoted post before you embarrass yourself.

Once again, I did, your point?

Is this some sort of Pee Wee Herman game?

Once AGAIN, and as above, the question is: where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

It doesn't. Nor does it need to. Not the First, not the Third, not the Fourth, etc etc etc. Only the Second does that. And no one knows why.

A Constitution has no need to justify what it lays out. It's not the venue to make arguments for or against; all that debate about what is needed and what is not, takes place before it's hammered out and writ down. And that calls into question the phrase's purpose -- if it's not there to justify what follows, then the question becomes what IS it there for?

Moreover the question wasn't even posed to you in the first place. The poster it WAS posted to, ran away from it.
He does that a lot.

/offtopic

The 2nd doesn't do that either, you chose to read it that way. As I said earlier and as another poster pointed out, at the time of the founding, most Americans relied on their firearms to eat and defend themselves. They also used them when local law enforcement needed help. So why would having a firearm be contingent on militia service? You commies just have no critical thinking skills beyond your indoctrination.

.

 

[rightwinger]

But, the electors are supposed to vote with the majority of their state, not the nation. Anything less than that, then there would be no need to even choose electors, as the electoral votes would already be decided by national popular vote.

I'm actually torn on this subject because I see how both methods are good and bad.

I understand that electoral college means smaller population states have a voice. I also see that, people say if you went with popular vote that New York and California would decide every election. It's not about geographical location, it's about population density. Yes, we would probably go blue every time, but that's only because New York and California have more people that those smaller populated states.


Again, "states" dont choose presidents, people do. Under the current system, more voices go unheard, because in many states, whoever wins the majority get all of the electoral votes. Take California for example. If dems win that state where 52% of the vote was blue and the other 48% was red, all of California's 54 electoral votes go to one candidate, which means the voice of those other 48% no longer matters.

Under a popular vote, every vote matters and it would mean candidates would have to work harder to earn those votes.

One thing is for sure, I do not agree with the way the left is going about this. If they want a popular vote, they need to attempt it by going about it the right way, and not trying to side step the current system.

Well I think the founders did want states to vote and not individuals. That was the idea behind the electoral college. But remember, the President of the United States is more than the leader of the people, he is also the leader of the land as well.

Let's say the President wants to run an oil line across the US like the Keystone. He has to consider the political impact of the states that line is going to go through. Or perhaps if we start running out of places for our garbage. You wouldn't want NYC trash hauled to your state because the population there is only 700,000 people and their vote is meaningless. How about if we expand our nuclear power plants and need new space for nuclear waste?

If we had popular vote and a major war broke out where the draft had to be re-instituted, why not have the draft board take people from those lowest populated states? Don't piss off those people in New York or Texas! Let them stay at home and vote for me!

I hadn't thought of that before. The impact of decisions that affect states. It's a good point, and I appreciate that insight.

I think I see now what they mean when they say states choose presidents. Each state has to have a voice in the matter so they can represent their land, and the choices made about that land from a federal perspective.

More so, a voice about federal laws, and taxation and such.

It does make the popular vote less appealing when you think that cali and NY would have major role, more than a small state like RI.

Since you have a higher population of dems across the country than repubs, a popular vote would mean people living in west and east coast states would have more impact on the lives of people living in southern states and middle America.

I was just going off of a majority rule type thing. My thought process was wrapped around, if more people want candidate A, then why should fewer people be able to override them.

I can understand that sentiment, but when it comes from the left, I know it's purely about power.

Here is a map of last election by county. Keep in mind that Trump didn't sweep the country by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had more electoral votes.

Left up to the popular vote, those small blue sections would have power over the entire country red or blue.

View attachment 254516

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Those blue areas are where the people are

Lol
The blue areas have no control over the red areas… As the way it should be

Their votes do

 

[Rustic]

Well I think the founders did want states to vote and not individuals. That was the idea behind the electoral college. But remember, the President of the United States is more than the leader of the people, he is also the leader of the land as well.

Let's say the President wants to run an oil line across the US like the Keystone. He has to consider the political impact of the states that line is going to go through. Or perhaps if we start running out of places for our garbage. You wouldn't want NYC trash hauled to your state because the population there is only 700,000 people and their vote is meaningless. How about if we expand our nuclear power plants and need new space for nuclear waste?

If we had popular vote and a major war broke out where the draft had to be re-instituted, why not have the draft board take people from those lowest populated states? Don't piss off those people in New York or Texas! Let them stay at home and vote for me!

I hadn't thought of that before. The impact of decisions that affect states. It's a good point, and I appreciate that insight.

I think I see now what they mean when they say states choose presidents. Each state has to have a voice in the matter so they can represent their land, and the choices made about that land from a federal perspective.

More so, a voice about federal laws, and taxation and such.

It does make the popular vote less appealing when you think that cali and NY would have major role, more than a small state like RI.

Since you have a higher population of dems across the country than repubs, a popular vote would mean people living in west and east coast states would have more impact on the lives of people living in southern states and middle America.

I was just going off of a majority rule type thing. My thought process was wrapped around, if more people want candidate A, then why should fewer people be able to override them.

I can understand that sentiment, but when it comes from the left, I know it's purely about power.

Here is a map of last election by county. Keep in mind that Trump didn't sweep the country by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had more electoral votes.

Left up to the popular vote, those small blue sections would have power over the entire country red or blue.

View attachment 254516

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Those blue areas are where the people are

Lol
The blue areas have no control over the red areas… As the way it should be

Their votes do

Thank God we have the electoral college

 

[rightwinger]

I hadn't thought of that before. The impact of decisions that affect states. It's a good point, and I appreciate that insight.

I think I see now what they mean when they say states choose presidents. Each state has to have a voice in the matter so they can represent their land, and the choices made about that land from a federal perspective.

More so, a voice about federal laws, and taxation and such.

It does make the popular vote less appealing when you think that cali and NY would have major role, more than a small state like RI.

Since you have a higher population of dems across the country than repubs, a popular vote would mean people living in west and east coast states would have more impact on the lives of people living in southern states and middle America.

I was just going off of a majority rule type thing. My thought process was wrapped around, if more people want candidate A, then why should fewer people be able to override them.

I can understand that sentiment, but when it comes from the left, I know it's purely about power.

Here is a map of last election by county. Keep in mind that Trump didn't sweep the country by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had more electoral votes.

Left up to the popular vote, those small blue sections would have power over the entire country red or blue.

View attachment 254516

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Those blue areas are where the people are

The blue areas are big city people and the red areas are rural folk. Try eating a Gucci handbag rather than Cornbread.

The blue areas support the red areas

Always have

Without the red areas the blue areas would have no power, resources and food... dumbass

Blue areas control the wealth

Red areas would still be using lanterns if not for the subsidies from blue areas

 

[Rustic]

I can understand that sentiment, but when it comes from the left, I know it's purely about power.

Here is a map of last election by county. Keep in mind that Trump didn't sweep the country by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had more electoral votes.

Left up to the popular vote, those small blue sections would have power over the entire country red or blue.

View attachment 254516

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Those blue areas are where the people are

The blue areas are big city people and the red areas are rural folk. Try eating a Gucci handbag rather than Cornbread.

The blue areas support the red areas

Always have

Without the red areas the blue areas would have no power, resources and food... dumbass

Blue areas control the wealth

Red areas would still be using lanterns if not for the subsidies from blue areas

Lol
Na, not really
That obviously is not true, who owns the mineral rights and the land you fucking retard

 

[theHawk]

Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery

DemNazis...

If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!

We are in a Civil War.

And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.

Of course Dems would support screwing over the results of an election and the will of the people. They are saying that if a candidate wins a state, the electoral vote will be changed to the exact opposite outcome based on how other people in other states vote. Tyranny at its finest.

 

[rightwinger]

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Those blue areas are where the people are

The blue areas are big city people and the red areas are rural folk. Try eating a Gucci handbag rather than Cornbread.

The blue areas support the red areas

Always have

Without the red areas the blue areas would have no power, resources and food... dumbass

Blue areas control the wealth

Red areas would still be using lanterns if not for the subsidies from blue areas

Lol
Na, not really
That obviously is not true, who owns the mineral rights and the land you fucking retard

Those in the cities own those rights
They also subsidize all the infrastructure in rural America

They wouldn’t have electricity without those subsidies

 

[Pogo]

Interesting point, albeit totally off topic ---- where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

Oh it doesn't?

Exactly.

Wrong answer commie, the 1st Amendment confines itself to congressional actions. "Congress shall make no law". The supreme court later came up with the incorporation doctrine to include the States.

Once AGAIN ---

Once AGAIN, *READ* the quoted post before you embarrass yourself.

Once again, I did, your point?

Is this some sort of Pee Wee Herman game?

Once AGAIN, and as above, the question is: where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

It doesn't. Nor does it need to. Not the First, not the Third, not the Fourth, etc etc etc. Only the Second does that. And no one knows why.

A Constitution has no need to justify what it lays out. It's not the venue to make arguments for or against; all that debate about what is needed and what is not, takes place before it's hammered out and writ down. And that calls into question the phrase's purpose -- if it's not there to justify what follows, then the question becomes what IS it there for?

Moreover the question wasn't even posed to you in the first place. The poster it WAS posted to, ran away from it.
He does that a lot.

/offtopic

The 2nd doesn't do that either, you chose to read it that way. As I said earlier and as another poster pointed out, at the time of the founding, most Americans relied on their firearms to eat and defend themselves. They also used them when local law enforcement needed help. So why would having a firearm be contingent on militia service? You commies just have no critical thinking skills beyond your indoctrination.

You seem to be hung up on working economic systems in, which are irrelevant. The point here was a simple one, perhaps so simple you can't see it, and that is: what is the function of the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment? Why is that phrase there? What does it do? And where does anything like it appear in any other Amendment, within or without the Bill of Rights?





Exactly.

(/offtopic)

 

[OKTexas]

You lose by the established rules, and like a typical commie, you want to change the rules in your favor. Ain't gonna happen.

Try reading the actual post quoted.

I did, your point?

I actually have to spoon-feed this to you? Really?

The point (by Cecile) that I countered was one about disenfranchised voters under alternate systems.

That has zero to do with whatever you think I "lost", or with economic systems.
NOR do I live in Ohio.

"In numerous cases, making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine?"

Then why the tears over your vote not being on the winning side?

See why I said learn to read? I've posted NOTHING about "my vote" and nothing there refers to any "winning sides". The word "mine" refers to my state, not my vote.

Maybe you should let the poster I was countering respond. If she has one.

Maybe you should be more specific, mine is a first person pronoun.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ohio joins effort to shit on Republicans winning elections by losing the popular vote

Nobody joined anything yet. It's just a small group of sore losers who understand they can't win by the rules any longer.

Its actually inching closer to the 270 needed to control the election

If the Democrats thought they could win all elections using our system, they wouldn't by crying about it today. The only reason they are worked up now is because they lost another election with the EC. Every time they lose a presidential election, they whine that we need to make changes so they don't lose the next time; every presidential election.

Rules can be changed

Just like the rules on selecting a Supreme Court Justice changed

Yeah, Harry Weed did a real number on you guys with that one.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong answer commie, the 1st Amendment confines itself to congressional actions. "Congress shall make no law". The supreme court later came up with the incorporation doctrine to include the States.

Once AGAIN ---

Once AGAIN, *READ* the quoted post before you embarrass yourself.

Once again, I did, your point?

Is this some sort of Pee Wee Herman game?

Once AGAIN, and as above, the question is: where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

It doesn't. Nor does it need to. Not the First, not the Third, not the Fourth, etc etc etc. Only the Second does that. And no one knows why.

A Constitution has no need to justify what it lays out. It's not the venue to make arguments for or against; all that debate about what is needed and what is not, takes place before it's hammered out and writ down. And that calls into question the phrase's purpose -- if it's not there to justify what follows, then the question becomes what IS it there for?

Moreover the question wasn't even posed to you in the first place. The poster it WAS posted to, ran away from it.
He does that a lot.

/offtopic

The 2nd doesn't do that either, you chose to read it that way. As I said earlier and as another poster pointed out, at the time of the founding, most Americans relied on their firearms to eat and defend themselves. They also used them when local law enforcement needed help. So why would having a firearm be contingent on militia service? You commies just have no critical thinking skills beyond your indoctrination.

You seem to be hung up on working economic systems in, which are irrelevant. The point here was a simple one, perhaps so simple you can't see it, and that is: what is the function of the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment? Why is that phrase there? What does it do? And where does anything like it appear in any other Amendment, within or without the Bill of Rights?





Exactly.

(/offtopic)

Simply stated, it was a declaratory statement that a militia couldn't exist without the people and their arms since the militia is comprised by the people of the State. It in no way limited the right of the people keep and bear arms for other purposes.

.

 

[Pogo]

Try reading the actual post quoted.

I did, your point?

I actually have to spoon-feed this to you? Really?

The point (by Cecile) that I countered was one about disenfranchised voters under alternate systems.

That has zero to do with whatever you think I "lost", or with economic systems.
NOR do I live in Ohio.

"In numerous cases, making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine?"

Then why the tears over your vote not being on the winning side?

See why I said learn to read? I've posted NOTHING about "my vote" and nothing there refers to any "winning sides". The word "mine" refers to my state, not my vote.

Maybe you should let the poster I was countering respond. If she has one.

Maybe you should be more specific, mine is a first person pronoun.

Maybe you need to learn to read. Roll tape.

making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine

"Your and my" what? State's votes.

Most of her state's votes, as well as most of my state's votes. Because in both her state and my state, and a dozen others, nobody won as much as 50% of the vote, therefore more than 50% were flushed down the toilet.

Again ---- it wasn't responding to you in the first place; Again, let HER respond to it if she has a response.
It would appear she does not. Ergo, TKO.

 

[OKTexas]

I did, your point?

I actually have to spoon-feed this to you? Really?

The point (by Cecile) that I countered was one about disenfranchised voters under alternate systems.

That has zero to do with whatever you think I "lost", or with economic systems.
NOR do I live in Ohio.

"In numerous cases, making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine?"

Then why the tears over your vote not being on the winning side?

See why I said learn to read? I've posted NOTHING about "my vote" and nothing there refers to any "winning sides". The word "mine" refers to my state, not my vote.

Maybe you should let the poster I was countering respond. If she has one.

Maybe you should be more specific, mine is a first person pronoun.

Maybe you need to learn to read. Roll tape.

making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine

"Your and my" what? State's votes.

Most of her state's votes, as well as most of my state's votes. Because in both her state and my state, and a dozen others, nobody won as much as 50% of the vote, therefore more than 50% were flushed down the toilet.

Again ---- it wasn't responding to you in the first place; Again, let HER respond to it if she has a response.
It would appear she does not. Ergo, TKO.

And the NPV would change that how?


.

 

[The Original Tree]

Exactly, which then disenfranchises the voter

Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery

DemNazis...

If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!

We are in a Civil War.

And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.

Of course Dems would support screwing over the results of an election and the will of the people. They are saying that if a candidate wins a state, the electoral vote will be changed to the exact opposite outcome based on how other people in other states vote. Tyranny at its finest.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN ---

Once AGAIN, *READ* the quoted post before you embarrass yourself.

Once again, I did, your point?

Is this some sort of Pee Wee Herman game?

Once AGAIN, and as above, the question is: where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

It doesn't. Nor does it need to. Not the First, not the Third, not the Fourth, etc etc etc. Only the Second does that. And no one knows why.

A Constitution has no need to justify what it lays out. It's not the venue to make arguments for or against; all that debate about what is needed and what is not, takes place before it's hammered out and writ down. And that calls into question the phrase's purpose -- if it's not there to justify what follows, then the question becomes what IS it there for?

Moreover the question wasn't even posed to you in the first place. The poster it WAS posted to, ran away from it.
He does that a lot.

/offtopic

The 2nd doesn't do that either, you chose to read it that way. As I said earlier and as another poster pointed out, at the time of the founding, most Americans relied on their firearms to eat and defend themselves. They also used them when local law enforcement needed help. So why would having a firearm be contingent on militia service? You commies just have no critical thinking skills beyond your indoctrination.

You seem to be hung up on working economic systems in, which are irrelevant. The point here was a simple one, perhaps so simple you can't see it, and that is: what is the function of the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment? Why is that phrase there? What does it do? And where does anything like it appear in any other Amendment, within or without the Bill of Rights?





Exactly.

(/offtopic)

Simply stated, it was a declaratory statement that a militia couldn't exist without the people and their arms since the militia is comprised by the people of the State. It in no way limited the right of the people keep and bear arms for other purposes.

As already noted there is no need for such a "declaratory" statement, which is not what it is --- it's a subordinate conditional clause. The First Amendment for example does not say, "A well-informed Populace, being necessary to the Exercise of a free Republic, Congress shall make no Law...."; it simply jumps right in with the actual declaratory statement, "Congress shall make no Law...", period. Right into the action. No argument for such action is needed or included, no qualification or exception need be articulated. A Constitution is a declaration: "this is how we will roll". That doesn't mean "this is how we will roll BECAUSE A, B, C" and it doesn't mean "this is how we will roll "PROVIDED THAT A, B, C". It just gets right to the point of what IS.

The Second Amendment is literally the only one that doesn't do that.

(/STILL offtopic)

 

[Pogo]

I actually have to spoon-feed this to you? Really?

The point (by Cecile) that I countered was one about disenfranchised voters under alternate systems.

That has zero to do with whatever you think I "lost", or with economic systems.
NOR do I live in Ohio.

"In numerous cases, making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine?"

Then why the tears over your vote not being on the winning side?

See why I said learn to read? I've posted NOTHING about "my vote" and nothing there refers to any "winning sides". The word "mine" refers to my state, not my vote.

Maybe you should let the poster I was countering respond. If she has one.

Maybe you should be more specific, mine is a first person pronoun.

Maybe you need to learn to read. Roll tape.

making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine

"Your and my" what? State's votes.

Most of her state's votes, as well as most of my state's votes. Because in both her state and my state, and a dozen others, nobody won as much as 50% of the vote, therefore more than 50% were flushed down the toilet.

Again ---- it wasn't responding to you in the first place; Again, let HER respond to it if she has a response.
It would appear she does not. Ergo, TKO.

And the NPV would change that how?

Who said it does?

You're doing a bang-up job of not following somebody else's point. The poster I actually quoted ---- which again was not you ----- tried to sell this song and dance about the NPVIC suddenly "disenfranchising" voters in a given state, as if she's completely ignorant of the fact that MOST voters in her state are already disenfranchised by the current system. I set her straight on that, and as you see -- she has no response.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I actually have to spoon-feed this to you? Really?

The point (by Cecile) that I countered was one about disenfranchised voters under alternate systems.

That has zero to do with whatever you think I "lost", or with economic systems.
NOR do I live in Ohio.

"In numerous cases, making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine?"

Then why the tears over your vote not being on the winning side?

See why I said learn to read? I've posted NOTHING about "my vote" and nothing there refers to any "winning sides". The word "mine" refers to my state, not my vote.

Maybe you should let the poster I was countering respond. If she has one.

Maybe you should be more specific, mine is a first person pronoun.

Maybe you need to learn to read. Roll tape.

making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine

"Your and my" what? State's votes.

Most of her state's votes, as well as most of my state's votes. Because in both her state and my state, and a dozen others, nobody won as much as 50% of the vote, therefore more than 50% were flushed down the toilet.

Again ---- it wasn't responding to you in the first place; Again, let HER respond to it if she has a response.
It would appear she does not. Ergo, TKO.

And the NPV would change that how?


.

Someone obviously isn 't too swift on the uptake, since he's been on my ignore list for literally months now and still hasn't figured it out. On the upside, the only way he could win an argument is if the other person isn't aware it's happening, so . . .

 

[OKTexas]

"In numerous cases, making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine?"

Then why the tears over your vote not being on the winning side?

See why I said learn to read? I've posted NOTHING about "my vote" and nothing there refers to any "winning sides". The word "mine" refers to my state, not my vote.

Maybe you should let the poster I was countering respond. If she has one.

Maybe you should be more specific, mine is a first person pronoun.

Maybe you need to learn to read. Roll tape.

making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine

"Your and my" what? State's votes.

Most of her state's votes, as well as most of my state's votes. Because in both her state and my state, and a dozen others, nobody won as much as 50% of the vote, therefore more than 50% were flushed down the toilet.

Again ---- it wasn't responding to you in the first place; Again, let HER respond to it if she has a response.
It would appear she does not. Ergo, TKO.

And the NPV would change that how?

Who said it does?

You're doing a bang-up job of not following somebody else's point. The poster I actually quoted ---- which again was not you ----- tried to sell this song and dance about the NPVIC suddenly "disenfranchising" voters in a given state, as if she's completely ignorant of the fact that MOST voters in her state are already disenfranchised by the current system. I set her straight on that, and as you see -- she has no response.

Exactly how would you chose to rectify that and keep the federal system?

.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Trump isn't popular, can't get the popular vote. Sad!

Leftists aren't popular outside of their own communes, can't figure out how to win without cheating. SAD!

Reality shows who is really cheating.

Two more arrests in alleged North Carolina election fraud, bringing total to 4

North Carolina GOP Chair Indicted On Wire Fraud, Bribery Charges