Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit
It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.
It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.
Once AGAIN --- the will of the Majority was denied in the last election in:
In ALL of which the choice of the majority was nonexistent.
- AridZona
- Colorado
- Florida
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- New Hamster
- New Mexico
- North Cackalackee
- Pennsylvania
- Utah
- Virginia
- Wisconsin
And yet --- every one of these states sent 100% of their electoral votes --- 154 in total --- to a single candidate who failed to crack a majority of the state's vote.
How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?
Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.
Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.
Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".
All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.
Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.
The electoral college is not going anywhere no matter how much the far left screams and bitches about it.
There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit
You must live in a state where your vote counts for something.That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republicThe electoral college was born of slave owners to protect slavery from the abolitionist north. It's origins are tainted and it's original purpose no longer exists. People like to explain that it protects rural voters from irrelevance but what it really does is make minority party votes worthless. If you vote democrat in a red state or republican in a blue state your vote has probably never counted. I want my vote to count.
I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)
So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.
There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit
Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.
There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit
It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.
It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.
Once AGAIN --- the will of the Majority was denied in the last election in:
In ALL of which the choice of the majority was nonexistent.
- AridZona
- Colorado
- Florida
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- New Hamster
- New Mexico
- North Cackalackee
- Pennsylvania
- Utah
- Virginia
- Wisconsin
And yet --- every one of these states sent 100% of their electoral votes --- 154 in total --- to a single candidate who failed to crack a majority of the state's vote.
How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?
Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.
Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.
Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".
All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.
Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.
No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.
The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.
You must live in a state where your vote counts for something.That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republicThe electoral college was born of slave owners to protect slavery from the abolitionist north. It's origins are tainted and it's original purpose no longer exists. People like to explain that it protects rural voters from irrelevance but what it really does is make minority party votes worthless. If you vote democrat in a red state or republican in a blue state your vote has probably never counted. I want my vote to count.
I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)
So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.
About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?
In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.
The electoral college is not going anywhere no matter how much the far left screams and bitches about it.
It's just like with guns. They can't get rid of it, so they are trying to create schemes to get around it somehow. The left is just a bunch of anti-Americans. They should leave for another country.
because here it comes --- it ain't "the left".
You must live in a state where your vote counts for something.That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republic
I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)
So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.
About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?
In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.
It also means who-knows-how-many people just said "fuck it what's the point" and didn't vote at all (45% of the electorate to be exact). Because indeed when your state is predetermined, what IS the point, even if it's predetermined in the way you want?
You people are dangerous and violentThere is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit
Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.
Says she who approves of shooting up baseball practices full of GOP congressmen.You people are dangerous and violent
Says she who approves of shooting up baseball practices full of GOP congressmen.You people are dangerous and violent
You can blow that out your assSays she who approves of shooting up baseball practices full of GOP congressmen.You people are dangerous and violent
You can blow that out your assSays she who approves of shooting up baseball practices full of GOP congressmen.You people are dangerous and violent
Show us where I EVER said that
There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit
Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.
Truth hurts, eh?You can blow that out your assSays she who approves of shooting up baseball practices full of GOP congressmen.You people are dangerous and violent
Truth hurts, eh?You can blow that out your assSays she who approves of shooting up baseball practices full of GOP congressmen.You people are dangerous and violent
You're OK with violence, so long as the right people - that is, your political opponents - get hurt.
You people are dangerous and violentThere is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit
Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.
I'm uh, nnnnnot seeing any documentation there. No quote, no screenshot, no nuttin'.
Maybe it's my screen. Lesh do you see where he quoted you?
We sit, and we wait.
Yea...no...
He's a liar
And a real piece of shit
