Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[baileyn45]

On the original question of the op, never.

 

[Unkotare]

Because they are the majority.

Why would I want the inbred, bible thumping assholes fucking their cousins in the Red States dictating to me?

If you believe that bovine excrement, you are one sick individual.

He's sick because the majority should get to choose the president?

Personally I'd love to see PR in the House, so that when it comes to Presidential elections more viable parties are present. Then a run off system like France where the best two go against each other in a second round.

In 2016, we voted for a proposition for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. Legislators quickly shut down as much of it as it could and we can only vote for federal elections using it, even though it was passed because we usually have a pretty strong third party candidate and it caused us to elect that fruitcake LePage twice as governor without a majority. It finally got used in the primaries this year and went well. It was used for one of our senators and one of our Representatives to Congress, Bruce Poliquin (R).
King won by a majority and RCV did not kick in.
In Poliquin's race, however, there were four candidates and no one got the majority. All the ballots were couriered to a central counting location and the lengthy process began. Poliquin realized he might lose once the #2 votes were counted and has filed a lawsuit to stop RCV in Maine, saying it is unconstitutional. He is such a little Wormtail. If he were winning, you can bet your ass he wouldn't have said a word. He could have filed this suit anytime in the past two years and didn't.
Republicans are being disgusting.

Okay, and what's your point here? That it's bad or good? I can't really tell.

You can't? Ranked Choice Voting is the only solution for getting viable third party candidates on the ballot. Without it, people just consider a third party vote as a "spoiler," even if they really like them.
I think Ranked Choice Voting is very good and I think it is very bad that the Republicans have done everything they can to stop it. We need one word changed in the State Constitution to allow Ranked Choice Voting in state elections. Has that been done over the past two years? Nope. The politicians do not give a shit what the voters voted for.

Impractical, and an invitation for even more voter fraud.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

You're not exactly being truthful here.

Why would the popular vote not work "in a large nation"?

You're basically telling me that the larger a nation is, the less democracy there should be because.... oh, wait, you didn't say why.

Brazil uses a popular vote system with two rounds. They have a population of 210 million people. The system "works".

I don't understand what "works" means here.

The EC system "works" as in it puts a person into the presidency the same as a popular vote system does, the same as China's system does.

Are you saying it won't "work" as in the right wing will not get an overly easy ride therefore you don't like it, therefore it doesn't "work"? How would it not work?

What is it about democracy that you don't like?

That's the point this is not really what you would call a large homogeneous Nation like Japan or even China where one culture stretches across the width and breadth of the entire nation. Instead this is a very large and powerful conglomeration of many little Nations. It's an important aspect that adds both flexibility and durability to the union and must never be forgotten in a race to eliminate the states right's or boundaries.

Jo

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

and there is no reason they can't take their political views with them.

But, imagine you're a Democrat from California, and you move to Wyoming. Oh, you're screwed. You won't have a Democrat to represent you in the house. In the Presidential election your vote doesn't count any more.

What bullshit is that?

Same happens when a Republican from Wyoming moves to California, doesn't it?

Depending , of course, which part of the state they move to.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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 I think you are not considering- If a popular vote is instituted less populated states will have little or no influence. States like Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Or New Hampshire which were all swing states garnered a lot of attention from the candidates because they needed those electoral votes. There are 2 sure ways to mute the electoral votes of smaller states- go to straight popular vote and the candidates will only campaign in large states that have the most votes to be won, or go away from a winner take all format for state electoral votes.

 

[BluesLegend]

Will Dem's promise never to sue to overturn a popular vote they disagree with? That would be a giant NO!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Lets cut to the chase, those who want to get rid of the EC have the means to do so just amend the Constitution. If they can't muster the support of the American people to do that then tough shit.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Lets cut to the chase, those who want to get rid of the EC have the means to do so just amend the Constitution. If they can't muster the support of the American people to do that then tough shit.

The quandary for those who want to eliminate the electoral college is that they have to do it state by state, and smaller states don’t want to eliminate the EC.

Dems like to say the EC doesn’t work because it doesn’t reflect the will of the majority. What they fail to realize is the EC was implemented to stifle the will of the majority. In other words, the electoral college works perfectly doing what it was meant to do.

 

[Pilot1]

Lets cut to the chase, those who want to get rid of the EC have the means to do so just amend the Constitution. If they can't muster the support of the American people to do that then tough shit.

We have a mechanism for people to change the Constitution. If the want to modify the First Amendment to not allow "hate speech". They can. If they want to modify or remove the Second Amendment, they can. There is a process that must be followed, however.

The States were originally our main government, not the Feds. The Feds were a convenience just to do a few things individual states could not do. The purpose of States is to provide alternatives in political, social, and economic philosophy so people could vote with their feet and go where they were most comfortable. We were not meant to be a politically homogenous, one size fits all nation.

 

[justoffal]

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 I think you are not considering- If a popular vote is instituted less populated states will have little or no influence. States like Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Or New Hampshire which were all swing states garnered a lot of attention from the candidates because they needed those electoral votes. There are 2 sure ways to mute the electoral votes of smaller states- go to straight popular vote and the candidates will only campaign in large states that have the most votes to be won, or go away from a winner take all format for state electoral votes.

I agree....a straight popular vote is unworkable.

Jo

 

[LaDexter]

"decider"


????????????????????



What school did you attend, the W school for retarded youth??

 

[OldLady]

If you believe that bovine excrement, you are one sick individual.

He's sick because the majority should get to choose the president?

Personally I'd love to see PR in the House, so that when it comes to Presidential elections more viable parties are present. Then a run off system like France where the best two go against each other in a second round.

In 2016, we voted for a proposition for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. Legislators quickly shut down as much of it as it could and we can only vote for federal elections using it, even though it was passed because we usually have a pretty strong third party candidate and it caused us to elect that fruitcake LePage twice as governor without a majority. It finally got used in the primaries this year and went well. It was used for one of our senators and one of our Representatives to Congress, Bruce Poliquin (R).
King won by a majority and RCV did not kick in.
In Poliquin's race, however, there were four candidates and no one got the majority. All the ballots were couriered to a central counting location and the lengthy process began. Poliquin realized he might lose once the #2 votes were counted and has filed a lawsuit to stop RCV in Maine, saying it is unconstitutional. He is such a little Wormtail. If he were winning, you can bet your ass he wouldn't have said a word. He could have filed this suit anytime in the past two years and didn't.
Republicans are being disgusting.

Okay, and what's your point here? That it's bad or good? I can't really tell.

You can't? Ranked Choice Voting is the only solution for getting viable third party candidates on the ballot. Without it, people just consider a third party vote as a "spoiler," even if they really like them.
I think Ranked Choice Voting is very good and I think it is very bad that the Republicans have done everything they can to stop it. We need one word changed in the State Constitution to allow Ranked Choice Voting in state elections. Has that been done over the past two years? Nope. The politicians do not give a shit what the voters voted for.

Actually I believe you're wrong.

Germany has PR and they have six parties in government.
I could give a list of countries with PR and how many parties there are, and none will be two. Others will be many more.

France has a lower house elected via a two vote system. So, a person must get more than 50% of the votes in order to be elected to government. It's not as good as PR, but better than the US system.

But France has 9 political groups.

When it comes to electing the president there were FOUR people who received over 19% of the vote. That means people saw there were more choices. Then two of those choices went into a run off.

The US just has two parties and it's a massive con.

If you're going to change the electoral system, why not go for something even better than a system which still disenfranchises lots of people?

I'm interested in your response, but I don't understand it because I don't understand what "PR" stands for, or what it means.

 

[justoffal]

"decider"


????????????????????



What school did you attend, the W school for retarded youth??

We had dictionaries. Those are codex style things with words in them Leroy.

Related forms
de·cid·er , noun
pre·de·cide , verb (used with object),
pre·de·cid·ed,
pre·de·cid·ing.
re·de·cide , verb,
re·de·cid·ed,
re·de·cid·ing.

Go back to Jesse .... See if you can get mo'
Munny fah da skoolin'.

You know I can't decide whether or not your Moniker means you are dexter from Los Angeles or if you are a modern-day Urban creature with one of those hideously malformed English nomens that get passed out to the bruthas.
Like:

DeMarcus
Lajulius
Daqueenie
Makeeshawn
Lodickwad
Bigdumbass

Like those...nomshayin?



Jo

 

[Pogo]

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.

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

 

[Votto]

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.

Fine, let the other states secede and we can both have a government we like.

 

[OldLady]

If you believe that bovine excrement, you are one sick individual.

He's sick because the majority should get to choose the president?

Personally I'd love to see PR in the House, so that when it comes to Presidential elections more viable parties are present. Then a run off system like France where the best two go against each other in a second round.

In 2016, we voted for a proposition for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. Legislators quickly shut down as much of it as it could and we can only vote for federal elections using it, even though it was passed because we usually have a pretty strong third party candidate and it caused us to elect that fruitcake LePage twice as governor without a majority. It finally got used in the primaries this year and went well. It was used for one of our senators and one of our Representatives to Congress, Bruce Poliquin (R).
King won by a majority and RCV did not kick in.
In Poliquin's race, however, there were four candidates and no one got the majority. All the ballots were couriered to a central counting location and the lengthy process began. Poliquin realized he might lose once the #2 votes were counted and has filed a lawsuit to stop RCV in Maine, saying it is unconstitutional. He is such a little Wormtail. If he were winning, you can bet your ass he wouldn't have said a word. He could have filed this suit anytime in the past two years and didn't.
Republicans are being disgusting.

Okay, and what's your point here? That it's bad or good? I can't really tell.

You can't? Ranked Choice Voting is the only solution for getting viable third party candidates on the ballot. Without it, people just consider a third party vote as a "spoiler," even if they really like them.
I think Ranked Choice Voting is very good and I think it is very bad that the Republicans have done everything they can to stop it. We need one word changed in the State Constitution to allow Ranked Choice Voting in state elections. Has that been done over the past two years? Nope. The politicians do not give a shit what the voters voted for.

Impractical, and an invitation for even more voter fraud.

It's working fine here, but we only a little shy of a million voters. I certainly don't see why it invites fraud though.

 

[rightwinger]

The President should be a president of the people, not a president of the states

The states have Congress to represent their interests

 

[Pogo]

You're not exactly being truthful here.

Why would the popular vote not work "in a large nation"?

You're basically telling me that the larger a nation is, the less democracy there should be because.... oh, wait, you didn't say why.

Brazil uses a popular vote system with two rounds. They have a population of 210 million people. The system "works".

I don't understand what "works" means here.

The EC system "works" as in it puts a person into the presidency the same as a popular vote system does, the same as China's system does.

Are you saying it won't "work" as in the right wing will not get an overly easy ride therefore you don't like it, therefore it doesn't "work"? How would it not work?

What is it about democracy that you don't like?

That's the point this is not really what you would call a large homogeneous Nation like Japan or even China where one culture stretches across the width and breadth of the entire nation. Instead this is a very large and powerful conglomeration of many little Nations. It's an important aspect that adds both flexibility and durability to the union and must never be forgotten in a race to eliminate the states right's or boundaries.

Jo

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

and there is no reason they can't take their political views with them.

But, imagine you're a Democrat from California, and you move to Wyoming. Oh, you're screwed. You won't have a Democrat to represent you in the house. In the Presidential election your vote doesn't count any more.

What bullshit is that?

Same happens when a Republican from Wyoming moves to California, doesn't it?

Depending , of course, which part of the state they move to.

Actually no move is needed --- the same voter is screwed whether he/she is (already) a Republican in California, a Democrat in Wyoming, a Republican in Massachusetts, a Democrat in Texas, etc etc etc.

One of my primary criticisms on which you affixed a "funny" --- was that the system takes millions of votes and tosses them immediately in the shitcan, and that as a result voters in those locked states, knowing in advance that's going to happen, don't bother to turn out. Thus we'll never know how many would have voted for Rump in California or for Clinton in Alabama, since ALL of them knew before election day that there would be NO POINT IN DOING SO.

And that's why we get abysmal turnout rates. Voters in locked-red/locked-blue states can vote with the state, vote against the state, vote third party, or not bother to vote at all, and all four of those actions are going to bring the same result, because it's out of their hands.

And that's how the WTA/EC makes a mockery of what's supposed to be an "election".
You're welcome. Now don't forget to put a "funny" on this post because antidemocracy is hilarious.

 

[g5000]

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

I am a supporter of the electoral college system. The electoral college is the last remaining bulwark of our Republic.

To me, the race for President is more like a World Series, not a soccer match.

Every once in an odd while, the team that scores the most home runs loses the World Series because they did not win the most games. One of the more freakish examples is the New York Yankees vs Pittsburgh Pirates in 1960. The Yankees scored 55 runs while the Pirates scored only a meager 27 runs in comparison.

The Yankees lost the series, though, because they won only three of the seven games.

Trivia fact: 55 runs is the most runs ever scored in a World Series. Yet they still lost! How about that!

The 1960 presidential election happened to be a squeaker.

If we decided the race on the popular vote, then candidates would only campaign in heavily populated areas and would completely ignore the rural voters.

This would go against everything our REPUBLIC was built upon. It's bad enough we have already undermined republicanism by direct election of our US Senators. Republicanism would completely vanish if we directly elected our President.

And then we would experience all the horrors and pitfalls of a pure democracy. Mob rule.

Fuck that shit.

 

[ph3iron]

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?

----------------------------------------- and? What's your point? Are the people of Wyoming (Montana, Dakotas, etc) somehow "worth more" than people elsewhere?

What, are Los Angelinos somehow "subhuman"?

Isn't that revealing.

neither.

But, you seem to believe that ONE city is more important than FOUR states.

and it isn't

Something even the Founding Fathers were aware of.

They didn't want NY, VA and Penn ruling the country.

Why do you want Ca and NY ruling the country?

Actually you're wrong -- they did indeed want Virginia running the country; that's why they awarded its EVs in the amount of 3/5 of their slaves to bloat its influence.

Don't believe me? Check it out.

George Washington ---- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
John Adams --- Massachusetts. Non slaveowner. One term.
Thomas Jefferson --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
James Madison --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
James Monroe --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.

That's eight of the first nine Administrations from Virginia, which had extra EVs because of counting slaves.

Ever wonder why we were all taught in school that all these guys were from Virginia yet they never told us WHY they were from Virginia? Whelp ---- I just did.

Lol
There would be no United States without the founding fathers...
And original slaveowners in this country were my ancestors… American Indians

so take your fucking political correctness and shove it up your fucking ass

Feel free to SUCK MY DICK on the way to going to learn how the fuck to read.

Nothing I posted said anything about the history of slavery DUMBASS.

Nice foul mouth.
Dead giveaway for zero ed