Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Rustic]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.

The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.

The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.

Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?

Where is any of it inaccurate?

WillHaftawaite theHawk

It's simplistic.


When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose

the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.

Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.

'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.

The point is moot anyway.


'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC

Yep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.

Los Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507

Wyoming Population 2018

573,720

Montana Population 2018

1,062,330

North Dakota Population 2018

755,238

South Dakota Population 2018

877,790

Idaho Population 2018

1,753,860

Nebraska Population 2018

1,932,549


how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?


Screw popular vote

You mean screw California voters instead.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

Read up on what the Federal Republic designed by the Framers was designed to protect and then get back to us.

Or speak to my point.

How many presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote?

 

[Auld Phart]

Sorry bud

I don't want the minority of states ruling my life.

 

[Auld Phart]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

Read up on what the Federal Republic designed by the Framers was designed to protect and then get back to us.

Or speak to my point.

How many presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote?

5

 

[Rustic]

We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.

The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.

The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.

Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?

Where is any of it inaccurate?

WillHaftawaite theHawk

It's simplistic.


When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose

the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.

Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.

'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.

The point is moot anyway.


'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC

Yep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.

Los Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507

Wyoming Population 2018

573,720

Montana Population 2018

1,062,330

North Dakota Population 2018

755,238

South Dakota Population 2018

877,790

Idaho Population 2018

1,753,860

Nebraska Population 2018

1,932,549


how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?


Screw popular vote

You mean screw California voters instead.

Crazy Cali... Need to mind it’s own business. Karma is kicking its ass right now

 

[iceberg]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

Read up on what the Federal Republic designed by the Framers was designed to protect and then get back to us.

Or speak to my point.

How many presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote?

how many have ever had to?

stop being a little bitch about it and if you really want to change it, get off your whiney still struggling with jr high ideas ass and go make the changes you want in this world. we're plum full of idiots complaining 24x7.

 

[boedicca]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

Read up on what the Federal Republic designed by the Framers was designed to protect and then get back to us.

Or speak to my point.

How many presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote?

I don't care. If people want to crowd into major metro in blue states, that should not affect the rights of more rural states. The Framers designed a very sensible and fair system.

 

[Pogo]

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Its easier and more efficient to reach the voters in big cities than it is to go door to door in Rural America.

So it's more of an issue for campaign workers?

I heard someone say that states with low populations would never see a candidate again. LOL. That would be fine with most of us, I think. Who cares if they show up in person? We all have tv's and papers.

I couldn't care less if a Presidental candidate ever personally comes to Arizona, but I care very much that the needs and wishes of the people of Arizona be a factor in the administration's policy decisions. I have no desire to become a helpless, voiceless slave to LA.

Exactly pal, we Who live in other states can't vote out crazy ass Diane, Maxine or Nancy ( the three bitches from hell)

We can't do anything about them..if we don't live in there state.

And that's by design. Since they're all representatives of other people in another state (read: "not you and not your state"), you don't get to dick-tate who other people get to represent them, especially since you already have YOUR OWN representatives.

Amazing, innit?

Sooooo.... spend a lot of time meddling in other people's elections, do ya? Are you Russian by any chance?

 

[Pogo]

"takes the edgre off" huh. Wonder how Edgar feels about that.

We notice that summa y'all speak of this "population disparity" as if it were a negative, as if it's something to be penalized for.

Fact is, if most people wanted to live in Wyoming ---- they would.

We are 50 separate country's United , that's what you can never comprehend

Ironically enough this addressed nothing about what I just posted, so tell us about inability to comprehend.

We have been arguing about it for years and you have yet to acknowledge the damn fact we are 50 separate country's United...most everyone the world over knows Texas , California or flordia.


Not many people know what the hell Hokkaido is or frickin wurzburg

We have been arguing about it for five minutes and I haven't acknowledged it for two reasons --- one, it has nothing to do with what I have posted above, and two, even if [country's] were an actual word, we would NOT be 50 separate ones of them.

B.S. it's been at least 2 years we have been arguing about this and you will never acknowledge the fact we are 50 separate country's ..United


You want to think people have the same values all over America but we don't...a huge difference between a queer in San Francisco and a redneck in Georgia .

Bull The Fuck Shit. I've opined no such thing, ever. Find me a quote and prove me wrong or admit you can't do it and you pulled it out of your ass.

 

[Pogo]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Try it in Canada then eh.

Your reasoning makes no sense. The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Take the same concept and apply it to a state (or province). Does the "media concentration in Omaha" use control and high population to win Nebraska elections year after year? Please.

Yeah it was designed with "careful thought and consideration" for the slaveholders of the 1700s.

The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Yeah? I guess that means Russian adds also had no effect. Glad we can agree on that.

Russian "adds"? Pray, what did Russia "add"?

You can tell the Russians here by their tenuous command of English.

Care to address the actual post, tovarich?

 

[Pogo]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

Robespierre is chuckling in Hell.

Actually that's George Orwell. He never dreamed nightmared that Doublethink would take off to this degree.

"Mob rule" is a ludicrous construct on its face. The whole purpose of ANY election, whether it's for President, Mayor, dogcatcher or whether we should all wear cheese wedges on our heads, is to determine what the MAJORITY wants. If after the vote said majority has decided that no, we should not wear cheese wedges on our heads, then it makes NO sense to begin wearing said cheese wedges on the basis that NOT to do so would be acceding to what the vote said and therefore "mob rule". That's utterly absurd, and always has been. May as well quit trying to sell it, as no one is buying this brand of Doublethink.

The fact that all sides have agreed to proceed on the basis of a vote means that what happens as a result CANNOT be "mob rule". Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious but that's what it is and always was.

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Elections are 'mob rule'"

CHEESES.

 

[boedicca]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

Robespierre is chuckling in Hell.

Actually that's George Orwell. He never dreamed nightmared that Doublethink would take off to this degree.

"Mob rule" is a ludicrous construct on its face. The whole purpose of ANY election, whether it's for President, Mayor, dogcatcher or whether we should all wear cheese wedges on our heads, is to determine what the MAJORITY wants. If after the vote said majority has decided that no, we should not wear cheese wedges on our heads, then it makes NO sense to begin wearing said cheese wedges on the basis that NOT to do so would be acceding to what the vote said and therefore "mob rule". That's utterly absurd, and always has been. May as well quit trying to sell it, as no one is buying this brand of Doublethink.

The fact that all sides have agreed to proceed on the basis of a vote means that what happens as a result CANNOT be "mob rule". Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious but that's what it is and always was.

No, I meant Robespierre for a reason. The French Reign of Terror is being re-enacted by the Dem-Progs and their AntiFa thug vanguard, with a big assist by the Surveillance Media.

 

[Leo123]

The popular vote without an electoral college is nothing but mob rule.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Except the states are not fairly represented.

Favoring the minority over the majority is not fair by any definition.

Sorry, but no one is "favoring" the minority by making sure that the concerns of every region get heard and considered. The majority is still the majority, and still have the much-greater power that brings with it.

 

[iceberg]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

Robespierre is chuckling in Hell.

Actually that's George Orwell. He never dreamed nightmared that Doublethink would take off to this degree.

"Mob rule" is a ludicrous construct on its face. The whole purpose of ANY election, whether it's for President, Mayor, dogcatcher or whether we should all wear cheese wedges on our heads, is to determine what the MAJORITY wants. If after the vote said majority has decided that no, we should not wear cheese wedges on our heads, then it makes NO sense to begin wearing said cheese wedges on the basis that NOT to do so would be acceding to what the vote said and therefore "mob rule". That's utterly absurd, and always has been. May as well quit trying to sell it, as no one is buying this brand of Doublethink.

The fact that all sides have agreed to proceed on the basis of a vote means that what happens as a result CANNOT be "mob rule". Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious but that's what it is and always was.

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Elections are 'mob rule'"

CHEESES.

so, if the majority of people are fine with the system the way it is, then "mob rules" and we leave it alone. it would also mean a majority of people disagree with you and YOUR doublethink.

 

[Pogo]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

Read up on what the Federal Republic designed by the Framers was designed to protect and then get back to us.

Or speak to my point.

How many presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote?

5

Quincy Adams 1824
Polk 1844
Taylor 1848
Buchanan 1856
Lincoln 1860
Garfield 1880
Cleveland 1884 and 1892
Wilson 1912 and 1916
Truman 1948
JFK 1960
Nixon 1968
Clinton 1992
Bush 2000
Rump 2016

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

"It'll be exactly as it's always been, except that we'll be changing everything."

My vote has always counted toward deciding which candidate Arizona would support. So no, my vote would NOT count as it always has. It would count as YOU always THOUGHT it did, but I feel no compulsion to change reality to conform to your ignorant, uneducated perception of it.

 

[Pogo]

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

Robespierre is chuckling in Hell.

Actually that's George Orwell. He never dreamed nightmared that Doublethink would take off to this degree.

"Mob rule" is a ludicrous construct on its face. The whole purpose of ANY election, whether it's for President, Mayor, dogcatcher or whether we should all wear cheese wedges on our heads, is to determine what the MAJORITY wants. If after the vote said majority has decided that no, we should not wear cheese wedges on our heads, then it makes NO sense to begin wearing said cheese wedges on the basis that NOT to do so would be acceding to what the vote said and therefore "mob rule". That's utterly absurd, and always has been. May as well quit trying to sell it, as no one is buying this brand of Doublethink.

The fact that all sides have agreed to proceed on the basis of a vote means that what happens as a result CANNOT be "mob rule". Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious but that's what it is and always was.

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Elections are 'mob rule'"

CHEESES.

so, if the majority of people are fine with the system the way it is, then "mob rules" and we leave it alone. it would also mean a majority of people disagree with you and YOUR doublethink.

And as (not "like") I told Maid Marion --- this is a discussion topic. If you can come up with something to contribute or challenge --- do so. Yelling "shut up" from the sidelines is not discussion. It's trolling.

 

[Pogo]

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

Robespierre is chuckling in Hell.

Actually that's George Orwell. He never dreamed nightmared that Doublethink would take off to this degree.

"Mob rule" is a ludicrous construct on its face. The whole purpose of ANY election, whether it's for President, Mayor, dogcatcher or whether we should all wear cheese wedges on our heads, is to determine what the MAJORITY wants. If after the vote said majority has decided that no, we should not wear cheese wedges on our heads, then it makes NO sense to begin wearing said cheese wedges on the basis that NOT to do so would be acceding to what the vote said and therefore "mob rule". That's utterly absurd, and always has been. May as well quit trying to sell it, as no one is buying this brand of Doublethink.

The fact that all sides have agreed to proceed on the basis of a vote means that what happens as a result CANNOT be "mob rule". Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious but that's what it is and always was.

No, I meant Robespierre for a reason. The French Reign of Terror is being re-enacted by the Dem-Progs and their AntiFa thug vanguard, with a big assist by the Surveillance Media.

And I meant Orwell for a reason, which I already delineated.

Thank me later.