Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Clementine]

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

Hell, no. We are not a true democracy and never should become one. Had we done it the way the left wants, illegal aliens would be able to hand a victory to the one who promises amnesty and welfare.

We know illegals vote. There were more reports after this last election. California does not question voters. They do not have to be registered or live in a certain area. They don't ask about citizenship and don't care. Millions of illegal aliens vote. Hillary would have won because of the voters in southern California, mostly illegals.

It's already bad enough that illegals are counted in the census and that allows some states, like California, to have more electoral votes.

 

[JoeB131]

without the WTA aspect it would become meaningless. Might as well scrap it and go with PV and let the big population centers choose our presidents-------------exactly what the founders feared and the exact reason that they set up the EC

again, don't give a fuck what the Founding Slave Rapists wanted.

if the major population centers a picking the winners, it's because THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE LIVE.

I'd not only abolish the EC, I'd abolish the Senate and just have the house with non-gerrymandered districts.

 

[JoeB131]

We know illegals vote. There were more reports after this last election. California does not question voters. They do not have to be registered or live in a certain area. They don't ask about citizenship and don't care. Millions of illegal aliens vote. Hillary would have won because of the voters in southern California, mostly illegals.

There's what you 'know' and what you can 'prove'. You guys keep making this claim, but where's your proof? we have the registrations of every person who votes, it should be easy enough to prove who wasn't actually a citizen.

It's already bad enough that illegals are counted in the census and that allows some states, like California, to have more electoral votes.

You've obviously never worked as a census taker. Undocumented folks run from Census takers...

 

[Redfish]

Not one demolib would be screaming to do away with the EC if crooked Hillary had won. This whole discussion is just another example of left wing hypocrisy.

Over, done, Trump won, Hillary lost, 2016 is history, get the fuck over it and move on.

No arguments in this thread have linked to or hung on any specific election. Once AGAIN you can't seem to deal with the fact that this thread is about how the EC works, not about 2016, not about 2012, not about 2000, not about 19bloody68, not about 18fucking76, not about 18frickin'28, not about any specific election at all. It's about the way the EC works in ***EVERY ELECTION***.

Your speculation fallacy is dismissed out of hand. If you can't deal with the topic as it is, and you've contributed absolute zero in this post, then you should move on to something where you can contribute. K?

I have dealt with it. I am perfectly fine with the EC. I like the way it is set up to prevent the large population centers from choosing our presidents and allowing even the small population states to have a voice in the elections. the founders got it right.

Why specifically do you want to do away with it? and seriously, would you be ranting about it if Hillary had won? I doubt it.

You don't read much because, again, and I KNOW I pointed this out before --- I've been on the same argument about the EC for *YEARS*, WAY before 2016 with which that argument has nothing to do and obviously never did. This is a case of you looking for a cheap way out of addressing it, by pretending it's about something else. And that's just dishonest.

Also AGAIN --- and I know I said this before too --- I'm not saying I "want to do away with" the EC. What I've concentrated on is the WTA part of it that makes it insidious. That laundry list of my criticism of the system status quo ---- that it tosses away millions of votes, creates artificial "red" and "blue" states, makes us all dependent on polls, perpetuates the Duopoly, depresses general turnout ---- is all lain at the feet of the WTA, which has *ZERO* to do with the Constitution.

But yanno what, just skip those paragraphs above and ignore them again, because

without the WTA aspect it would become meaningless. Might as well scrap it and go with PV and let the big population centers choose our presidents-------------exactly what the founders feared and the exact reason that they set up the EC

That assertion is absolute bullshit. Go ahead and try to flesh it out, this concern about 'population centers' that didn't exist in the 18th century. By all means show us these quotes about 'population centers' and the concern thereof.

As for what the "founders feared", as I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread and many before over the years, one of those founders who was a principal architect OF the Electoral College, one James Madison, POTUS 4, wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would BAN the practice of WTA once it started to snowball. Even though such a ban would weaken his own home state of Virginia. What Madison indeed feared, was the WTA.

Madison was right. Time has proven that. the election of 2016 certainly proves his wisdom.

we all get it that you don't like the outcome of 2016 (your claims of previous complaints notwithstanding) and this is but another vain attempt to make the claim that Trump and Putin stole the election from crooked Hillary.

 

[Redfish]

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

Member the last time your state held a vote for governor, or a Senator, or both? Member how each county counted up its votes and then went to the state capital with its alloted electors and lied to your state legislator telling it EVERYBODY in county (Q) voted for Smith for Governor and Jones for Senator?

What? They didn't do that?

Whaddaya mean they counted up the total state votes? Why didn't they go with the "winner take all" wet dream, if it's how stuff works?

Having it both ways?

yes, that's they way state elections work, and as a result, NYC has more influence that Rochester, and New Orleans has more influence than Monroe, and Miami has more influence than panama city, and Atlanta has more influence than Dalton. That is why the recent elections in Florida and Georgia were close. the big cities choose governors and senators, the rest of the states might as well stay home.

That kinda makes the legacy string of (in this case) Georgia Republican Governors and Senators hard to explain, doesn't it.

You can take ANY bloc of however-defined statistics that is a larger number than the remainder, and that bloc has more influence. This isn't news. It's how numbers work.

The point above being avoided is that, if this proxy-elector system is the way to elect a head of state ---- then why isn't it valid to elect the head of A state? Same dynamics going on, same reasoning should apply. Why then doesn't it?

I can see why that question would be avoided, since it has no answer.

I think that some form of EC in the states would probably be a good change. Each county would have a fixed number of electors and those electors would choose the governor and senators. I agree with you, it works at the federal level so it would also work at the state level.

no one was avoiding your question, the answer was just so obvious no one thought it necessary to comment.

This is the first post to even so much as acknowledge the question --- although it didn't expect to be addressed.

In original form the question was, if this proxy-electoral-WTA system was such a stroke of genius, then how come zero of the 57 states have ever adopted it to elect their Governor or Senator.

Not a one.

maybe they will in the future, since it works so well at the federal level. As to WHY hasn't any state done it, I don't know. The EC is not going away so this is kind of a waste of time to continue to debate its merits or flaws.

 

[Pogo]

No arguments in this thread have linked to or hung on any specific election. Once AGAIN you can't seem to deal with the fact that this thread is about how the EC works, not about 2016, not about 2012, not about 2000, not about 19bloody68, not about 18fucking76, not about 18frickin'28, not about any specific election at all. It's about the way the EC works in ***EVERY ELECTION***.

Your speculation fallacy is dismissed out of hand. If you can't deal with the topic as it is, and you've contributed absolute zero in this post, then you should move on to something where you can contribute. K?

I have dealt with it. I am perfectly fine with the EC. I like the way it is set up to prevent the large population centers from choosing our presidents and allowing even the small population states to have a voice in the elections. the founders got it right.

Why specifically do you want to do away with it? and seriously, would you be ranting about it if Hillary had won? I doubt it.

You don't read much because, again, and I KNOW I pointed this out before --- I've been on the same argument about the EC for *YEARS*, WAY before 2016 with which that argument has nothing to do and obviously never did. This is a case of you looking for a cheap way out of addressing it, by pretending it's about something else. And that's just dishonest.

Also AGAIN --- and I know I said this before too --- I'm not saying I "want to do away with" the EC. What I've concentrated on is the WTA part of it that makes it insidious. That laundry list of my criticism of the system status quo ---- that it tosses away millions of votes, creates artificial "red" and "blue" states, makes us all dependent on polls, perpetuates the Duopoly, depresses general turnout ---- is all lain at the feet of the WTA, which has *ZERO* to do with the Constitution.

But yanno what, just skip those paragraphs above and ignore them again, because

without the WTA aspect it would become meaningless. Might as well scrap it and go with PV and let the big population centers choose our presidents-------------exactly what the founders feared and the exact reason that they set up the EC

That assertion is absolute bullshit. Go ahead and try to flesh it out, this concern about 'population centers' that didn't exist in the 18th century. By all means show us these quotes about 'population centers' and the concern thereof.

As for what the "founders feared", as I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread and many before over the years, one of those founders who was a principal architect OF the Electoral College, one James Madison, POTUS 4, wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would BAN the practice of WTA once it started to snowball. Even though such a ban would weaken his own home state of Virginia. What Madison indeed feared, was the WTA.

Madison was right. Time has proven that. the election of 2016 certainly proves his wisdom.

we all get it that you don't like the outcome of 2016 (your claims of previous complaints notwithstanding) and this is but another vain attempt to make the claim that Trump and Putin stole the election from crooked Hillary.

You continue to post patent dishonesty. Or perhaps you'd like to essplain to the class how it is that I was posting exactly the same points for exactly the same reasons before 2016. What, am I some kind of psychic? Perhaps we can discern next week's lottery numbers from my posts from last February?

It completely baffles me what summa y'all partisan hacks don't get about how linear time works.

Yes, Madison was right. And what you didn't bother to read above was that Madison thought the WTA practice, which had just got started spreading at the time, should be BANNED.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We know illegals vote. There were more reports after this last election. California does not question voters. They do not have to be registered or live in a certain area. They don't ask about citizenship and don't care. Millions of illegal aliens vote. Hillary would have won because of the voters in southern California, mostly illegals.

There's what you 'know' and what you can 'prove'. You guys keep making this claim, but where's your proof? we have the registrations of every person who votes, it should be easy enough to prove who wasn't actually a citizen.

It's already bad enough that illegals are counted in the census and that allows some states, like California, to have more electoral votes.

You've obviously never worked as a census taker. Undocumented folks run from Census takers...

You obviously don't know what is on the supreme Court docket. With California fighting the Trump administration 2020 cencus question are you a legal citizen ..


.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

What you're failing to "see" is that there was a deliberate choice by our political leaders to give smaller States a say in how the government was run...the Electoral College wasn't designed to cheat larger States like California but rather to keep smaller States like North Dakota from having no influence what so ever. If you do away with the Electoral College then a few populous States like California, New York and Florida will dictate how the nation is run...something which the "fly over" States quite frankly find extremely scary!

 

[jasonnfree]

I have dealt with it. I am perfectly fine with the EC. I like the way it is set up to prevent the large population centers from choosing our presidents and allowing even the small population states to have a voice in the elections. the founders got it right.

Why specifically do you want to do away with it? and seriously, would you be ranting about it if Hillary had won? I doubt it.

You don't read much because, again, and I KNOW I pointed this out before --- I've been on the same argument about the EC for *YEARS*, WAY before 2016 with which that argument has nothing to do and obviously never did. This is a case of you looking for a cheap way out of addressing it, by pretending it's about something else. And that's just dishonest.

Also AGAIN --- and I know I said this before too --- I'm not saying I "want to do away with" the EC. What I've concentrated on is the WTA part of it that makes it insidious. That laundry list of my criticism of the system status quo ---- that it tosses away millions of votes, creates artificial "red" and "blue" states, makes us all dependent on polls, perpetuates the Duopoly, depresses general turnout ---- is all lain at the feet of the WTA, which has *ZERO* to do with the Constitution.

But yanno what, just skip those paragraphs above and ignore them again, because

without the WTA aspect it would become meaningless. Might as well scrap it and go with PV and let the big population centers choose our presidents-------------exactly what the founders feared and the exact reason that they set up the EC

That assertion is absolute bullshit. Go ahead and try to flesh it out, this concern about 'population centers' that didn't exist in the 18th century. By all means show us these quotes about 'population centers' and the concern thereof.

As for what the "founders feared", as I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread and many before over the years, one of those founders who was a principal architect OF the Electoral College, one James Madison, POTUS 4, wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would BAN the practice of WTA once it started to snowball. Even though such a ban would weaken his own home state of Virginia. What Madison indeed feared, was the WTA.

Madison was right. Time has proven that. the election of 2016 certainly proves his wisdom.

we all get it that you don't like the outcome of 2016 (your claims of previous complaints notwithstanding) and this is but another vain attempt to make the claim that Trump and Putin stole the election from crooked Hillary.

You continue to post patent dishonesty. Or perhaps you'd like to essplain to the class how it is that I was posting exactly the same points for exactly the same reasons before 2016. What, am I some kind of psychic? Perhaps we can discern next week's lottery numbers from my posts from last February?

It completely baffles me what summa y'all partisan hacks don't get about how linear time works.

Yes, Madison was right. And what you didn't bother to read above was that Madison thought the WTA practice, which had just got started spreading at the time, should be BANNED.

Do we want a few large population centers deciding for all the states? Many of those small population states are agricultural, mining, ranching etc. The heartland of America. Quite different than Los Angeles county for example, but those states are still important. The diversity of the nation wouldn't be represented if the big city votes were allowed to overwhelm the small population states. IMO anyway. It seems like it's worked out to be fair the way it is. Approximately half the time democrats win, half the time republicans win.

 

[JoeB131]

You obviously don't know what is on the supreme Court docket. With California fighting the Trump administration 2020 cencus question are you a legal citizen ..

which has nothing to do with my point. I did work as a Census Enumerator in 2000 and 2010. In both cases, two different areas, undocumented immigrants would run and hide from the Census takers.

Now, um, yeah, California should fight that point, as the purpose of it is to intimidate people into not participating in the census, which counts EVERYONE, not just citizens.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You obviously don't know what is on the supreme Court docket. With California fighting the Trump administration 2020 cencus question are you a legal citizen ..

which has nothing to do with my point. I did work as a Census Enumerator in 2000 and 2010. In both cases, two different areas, undocumented immigrants would run and hide from the Census takers.

Now, um, yeah, California should fight that point, as the purpose of it is to intimidate people into not participating in the census, which counts EVERYONE, not just citizens.

Joe I am know what you are saying..

We are both chicago guys..


But my question to you is how this made a big deal to the supreme Court?



Is something different happing in California?

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You obviously don't know what is on the supreme Court docket. With California fighting the Trump administration 2020 cencus question are you a legal citizen ..

which has nothing to do with my point. I did work as a Census Enumerator in 2000 and 2010. In both cases, two different areas, undocumented immigrants would run and hide from the Census takers.

Now, um, yeah, California should fight that point, as the purpose of it is to intimidate people into not participating in the census, which counts EVERYONE, not just citizens.

Joe I am know what you are saying..

We are both chicago guys..


But my question to you is how this made a big deal to the supreme Court?



Is something different happing in California?

.

P s. Yea I will trash you sometimes..but your my friend and we love chicago..


Know it..


.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe I am know what you are saying..

We are both chicago guys..


But my question to you is how this made a big deal to the supreme Court?

Is something different happing in California?

Um, no what is happening is Trump is trying to bully people into not being counted, which is the exact opposite of what the constitution calls for.

The constitution calls for an EXACT counting of every person.

So once again, we have another case of the Orange Fuhrer trying to ignore what the constitution says.

 

[Pogo]

You don't read much because, again, and I KNOW I pointed this out before --- I've been on the same argument about the EC for *YEARS*, WAY before 2016 with which that argument has nothing to do and obviously never did. This is a case of you looking for a cheap way out of addressing it, by pretending it's about something else. And that's just dishonest.

Also AGAIN --- and I know I said this before too --- I'm not saying I "want to do away with" the EC. What I've concentrated on is the WTA part of it that makes it insidious. That laundry list of my criticism of the system status quo ---- that it tosses away millions of votes, creates artificial "red" and "blue" states, makes us all dependent on polls, perpetuates the Duopoly, depresses general turnout ---- is all lain at the feet of the WTA, which has *ZERO* to do with the Constitution.

But yanno what, just skip those paragraphs above and ignore them again, because

without the WTA aspect it would become meaningless. Might as well scrap it and go with PV and let the big population centers choose our presidents-------------exactly what the founders feared and the exact reason that they set up the EC

That assertion is absolute bullshit. Go ahead and try to flesh it out, this concern about 'population centers' that didn't exist in the 18th century. By all means show us these quotes about 'population centers' and the concern thereof.

As for what the "founders feared", as I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread and many before over the years, one of those founders who was a principal architect OF the Electoral College, one James Madison, POTUS 4, wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would BAN the practice of WTA once it started to snowball. Even though such a ban would weaken his own home state of Virginia. What Madison indeed feared, was the WTA.

Madison was right. Time has proven that. the election of 2016 certainly proves his wisdom.

we all get it that you don't like the outcome of 2016 (your claims of previous complaints notwithstanding) and this is but another vain attempt to make the claim that Trump and Putin stole the election from crooked Hillary.

You continue to post patent dishonesty. Or perhaps you'd like to essplain to the class how it is that I was posting exactly the same points for exactly the same reasons before 2016. What, am I some kind of psychic? Perhaps we can discern next week's lottery numbers from my posts from last February?

It completely baffles me what summa y'all partisan hacks don't get about how linear time works.

Yes, Madison was right. And what you didn't bother to read above was that Madison thought the WTA practice, which had just got started spreading at the time, should be BANNED.

Do we want a few large population centers deciding for all the states?

We don't HAVE "a few large population centers deciding for all the states". That's a façile mythology with no basis.

I know it's easy to just keep regurgitating the same old bullshit script over and over and over but it doesn't render it any less bullshitious. The script has to make some kind of logical sense when it's first scripted, which this one NEVER has. The whole idea of voting is that the majority prevails, period. Therefore in any one of those states, whoever gets the most votes for Governor, is going to be Governor, simple as that. The fact that more people live in the cities of that state than in the hinterlands is irrelevant to anything. Are we going to penalize people for living in cities now? What is that, some kind of governmental repopulation plan?

If more people didn't live in cities ---- we wouldn't be calling them "cities" now would we. Think about it.

 

[iceberg]

without the WTA aspect it would become meaningless. Might as well scrap it and go with PV and let the big population centers choose our presidents-------------exactly what the founders feared and the exact reason that they set up the EC

again, don't give a fuck what the Founding Slave Rapists wanted.

if the major population centers a picking the winners, it's because THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE LIVE.

I'd not only abolish the EC, I'd abolish the Senate and just have the house with non-gerrymandered districts.

so we're sitting in a thread where people are bitching cause they want popular vote IN THIS INSTANCE and you're turning it into TRUMP BAD and making HIM look like HE doesn't like the constitution when again, the entire premise of this thread is mad cause the left lost and wants to rewrite the constitution to fit their current base of power.

that's funny shit right there. stupid as all fucking getout but funny.

 

[Lesh]

The popular vote is how the Senate is elected and how (locally) the House is elected.

It also informs us as to the "will of the people" in the Presidential election but the Electoral College stands and should stand .
States however CAN apportion their Electors as thy see fit.. That's in the Constitution.

Should they decide to apportion their Electors according to the popular vote...that is entirely within their right

 

[Redfish]

without the WTA aspect it would become meaningless. Might as well scrap it and go with PV and let the big population centers choose our presidents-------------exactly what the founders feared and the exact reason that they set up the EC

That assertion is absolute bullshit. Go ahead and try to flesh it out, this concern about 'population centers' that didn't exist in the 18th century. By all means show us these quotes about 'population centers' and the concern thereof.

As for what the "founders feared", as I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread and many before over the years, one of those founders who was a principal architect OF the Electoral College, one James Madison, POTUS 4, wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would BAN the practice of WTA once it started to snowball. Even though such a ban would weaken his own home state of Virginia. What Madison indeed feared, was the WTA.

Madison was right. Time has proven that. the election of 2016 certainly proves his wisdom.

we all get it that you don't like the outcome of 2016 (your claims of previous complaints notwithstanding) and this is but another vain attempt to make the claim that Trump and Putin stole the election from crooked Hillary.

You continue to post patent dishonesty. Or perhaps you'd like to essplain to the class how it is that I was posting exactly the same points for exactly the same reasons before 2016. What, am I some kind of psychic? Perhaps we can discern next week's lottery numbers from my posts from last February?

It completely baffles me what summa y'all partisan hacks don't get about how linear time works.

Yes, Madison was right. And what you didn't bother to read above was that Madison thought the WTA practice, which had just got started spreading at the time, should be BANNED.

Do we want a few large population centers deciding for all the states?

We don't HAVE "a few large population centers deciding for all the states". That's a façile mythology with no basis.

I know it's easy to just keep regurgitating the same old bullshit script over and over and over but it doesn't render it any less bullshitious. The script has to make some kind of logical sense when it's first scripted, which this one NEVER has. The whole idea of voting is that the majority prevails, period. Therefore in any one of those states, whoever gets the most votes for Governor, is going to be Governor, simple as that. The fact that more people live in the cities of that state than in the hinterlands is irrelevant to anything. Are we going to penalize people for living in cities now? What is that, some kind of governmental repopulation plan?

If more people didn't live in cities ---- we wouldn't be calling them "cities" now would we. Think about it.

are you serious? its one continuous city from Boston to DC, another one from San Diego to LA, Houston to Dallas, Miami to Ft Lauderdale. Those are what is known as population centers, and most of their residents lean left and expect the govt to take care of them.

How about if you are on welfare or food stamps you don't get to vote, only taxpayers get to vote since they are the ones funding the government?

 

[Redfish]

The popular vote is how the Senate is elected and how (locally) the House is elected.

It also informs us as to the "will of the people" in the Presidential election but the Electoral College stands and should stand .
States however CAN apportion their Electors as thy see fit.. That's in the Constitution.

Should they decide to apportion their Electors according to the popular vote...that is entirely within their right

yes, and that would defeat the purpose of the electoral college, because the large cities would dominate the state electors.

We all understand that you on the left want the liberal factions in the country to control, but the EC is not going away. Run some decent candidates and you might win. Run crooks like Hillary and you will continue to lose.

 

[Pogo]

That assertion is absolute bullshit. Go ahead and try to flesh it out, this concern about 'population centers' that didn't exist in the 18th century. By all means show us these quotes about 'population centers' and the concern thereof.

As for what the "founders feared", as I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread and many before over the years, one of those founders who was a principal architect OF the Electoral College, one James Madison, POTUS 4, wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would BAN the practice of WTA once it started to snowball. Even though such a ban would weaken his own home state of Virginia. What Madison indeed feared, was the WTA.

Madison was right. Time has proven that. the election of 2016 certainly proves his wisdom.

we all get it that you don't like the outcome of 2016 (your claims of previous complaints notwithstanding) and this is but another vain attempt to make the claim that Trump and Putin stole the election from crooked Hillary.

You continue to post patent dishonesty. Or perhaps you'd like to essplain to the class how it is that I was posting exactly the same points for exactly the same reasons before 2016. What, am I some kind of psychic? Perhaps we can discern next week's lottery numbers from my posts from last February?

It completely baffles me what summa y'all partisan hacks don't get about how linear time works.

Yes, Madison was right. And what you didn't bother to read above was that Madison thought the WTA practice, which had just got started spreading at the time, should be BANNED.

Do we want a few large population centers deciding for all the states?

We don't HAVE "a few large population centers deciding for all the states". That's a façile mythology with no basis.

I know it's easy to just keep regurgitating the same old bullshit script over and over and over but it doesn't render it any less bullshitious. The script has to make some kind of logical sense when it's first scripted, which this one NEVER has. The whole idea of voting is that the majority prevails, period. Therefore in any one of those states, whoever gets the most votes for Governor, is going to be Governor, simple as that. The fact that more people live in the cities of that state than in the hinterlands is irrelevant to anything. Are we going to penalize people for living in cities now? What is that, some kind of governmental repopulation plan?

If more people didn't live in cities ---- we wouldn't be calling them "cities" now would we. Think about it.

are you serious? its one continuous city from Boston to DC, another one from San Diego to LA, Houston to Dallas, Miami to Ft Lauderdale. Those are what is known as population centers, and most of their residents lean left and expect the govt to take care of them.

How about if you are on welfare or food stamps you don't get to vote, only taxpayers get to vote since they are the ones funding the government?

How about if you get off your perch and quit purporting to speak for X millions of people in the megalopoli who you don't even know? What a concept.

Again, the fact that you're butthurt about how (you perceive) some cherrypicked sector votes is irrelevant. That sector may be just as butthurt about the way you vote. That's why we all vote; mine counters yours. But I don't get to say yours doesn't count and you don't get to say mine doesn't.

 

[JoeB131]

so we're sitting in a thread where people are bitching cause they want popular vote IN THIS INSTANCE and you're turning it into TRUMP BAD and making HIM look like HE doesn't like the constitution when again, the entire premise of this thread is mad cause the left lost and wants to rewrite the constitution to fit their current base of power.

Well, we probably do need to rewrite the best bad ideas of 18th Century Slave rapists.....

the fact that someone that BOTH parties knows is unqualified is in there after the people loudly said, "NO!" shows that the constitution has failed, miserably.