Supreme Court needs to strike down abolishment of EC or we need an ammendment allowing secession.

[Penelope]

Yes, most conservatives are truly this stupid and ignorant.

The Electoral College can be eliminated only by an amendment to the Constitution – once the Constitution is amended, it’s beyond the purview of the Supreme Court to ‘strike down.’

And the amendment process functions independent of the Supreme Court, which has no authority to interfere with that process.

The best example of this would be the 14th Amendment rendering void the Dred Scott decision.

Conservatives couldn’t care less about ‘preserving’ the Electoral Collage or the ‘original intent’ of the Framers. Their defense of the Electoral College is solely partisan, electing Republican presidents contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

A typically partisan response from the Board idiot. The Electoral College is one of the checks against the Mob that the Founders were so concerned about. And you are an excellent example why their concern was well founded.

And Trump so wanted to get rid of it, because it served the Democrats. Now he likes it.

Name a Democrat that lost the National Popular vote and won the Electoral College?

Until then you and Trump need to learn history because the only ones that won the Electoratal College while losing the Popular Vote was Republicans and John Quincy Adams...

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org

I know Trump is ignorant. (Gore and Clinton won the popular vote)

What has to do with the Price of Tea in China?

National Popular vote has never elected the President and a argument can be made for Gore but not for Clinton because as pointed out She lost too many States and Gore lost Florida but had he won his Home State of Tennessee Bush would have never been President.

So before you bash Trump why not learn when you can argue and stop pretending Clinton was Popular across this country and she was only Popular in certain states which is why she lost the Electoral College!

Well then its about time it is done away with. The reason it was started is because the rich white men were the only ones that could read and travel. Those small non populous states are represented in the congress. We should also take away one of their Senators.

 

[22lcidw]

You know how the lefists are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and abolish the Electoral College? Well, small states only agreed to join the union based on an agreement to the great compromise when the country was founded decreeing that each state got two votes and an additional number of votes based on their population. The reasoning behind the compromise has not changed. I say that if the Supreme Court does not strike down the current marxist power struggle to abolish the EC, we should at least ammend the constitution to grant states the right to secede if the Electoral College is abolished. The smaller states joined the union under the mutual agreement to the compromise we know as the Electoral College and if this country can't stand by the terms of that agreement, then we should not expect others to.

Good we will let you, you hardly pay any taxes at all, and why should your vote count more than anyone's else.

They help to produce the goods that help top keep you alive.

 

[Penelope]

You know how the lefists are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and abolish the Electoral College? Well, small states only agreed to join the union based on an agreement to the great compromise when the country was founded decreeing that each state got two votes and an additional number of votes based on their population. The reasoning behind the compromise has not changed. I say that if the Supreme Court does not strike down the current marxist power struggle to abolish the EC, we should at least ammend the constitution to grant states the right to secede if the Electoral College is abolished. The smaller states joined the union under the mutual agreement to the compromise we know as the Electoral College and if this country can't stand by the terms of that agreement, then we should not expect others to.

Good we will let you, you hardly pay any taxes at all, and why should your vote count more than anyone's else.

They help to produce the goods that help top keep you alive.

What goods??

 

[22lcidw]

You know how the lefists are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and abolish the Electoral College? Well, small states only agreed to join the union based on an agreement to the great compromise when the country was founded decreeing that each state got two votes and an additional number of votes based on their population. The reasoning behind the compromise has not changed. I say that if the Supreme Court does not strike down the current marxist power struggle to abolish the EC, we should at least ammend the constitution to grant states the right to secede if the Electoral College is abolished. The smaller states joined the union under the mutual agreement to the compromise we know as the Electoral College and if this country can't stand by the terms of that agreement, then we should not expect others to.

Good we will let you, you hardly pay any taxes at all, and why should your vote count more than anyone's else.

They help to produce the goods that help top keep you alive.

What goods??

The red areas have farm products. They have meat products. They have energy resources. They have mineral resources. They have a massive and growing manufacturing resources compared to blue areas. And much more. And all they have to do is cut the train rail lines and blow up the highways to end transportation to you in a civil discourse. You can't eat paperwork.

 

[Penelope]

You know how the lefists are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and abolish the Electoral College? Well, small states only agreed to join the union based on an agreement to the great compromise when the country was founded decreeing that each state got two votes and an additional number of votes based on their population. The reasoning behind the compromise has not changed. I say that if the Supreme Court does not strike down the current marxist power struggle to abolish the EC, we should at least ammend the constitution to grant states the right to secede if the Electoral College is abolished. The smaller states joined the union under the mutual agreement to the compromise we know as the Electoral College and if this country can't stand by the terms of that agreement, then we should not expect others to.

Good we will let you, you hardly pay any taxes at all, and why should your vote count more than anyone's else.

They help to produce the goods that help top keep you alive.

What goods??

The red areas have farm products. They have meat products. They have energy resources. They have mineral resources. They have a massive and growing manufacturing resources compared to blue areas. And much more. And all they have to do is cut the train rail lines and blow up the highways to end transportation to you in a civil discourse. You can't eat paperwork.

They are represented in congress. If they had more jobs, they would have more people, then they might deserve the 3 EC they get.

 

[Lesh]

We have some real fever dreams here. Secession? We did that once and it was pretty ugly.

You really want to destroy the country huh...

 

[westwall]

A typically partisan response from the Board idiot. The Electoral College is one of the checks against the Mob that the Founders were so concerned about. And you are an excellent example why their concern was well founded.

And Trump so wanted to get rid of it, because it served the Democrats. Now he likes it.

Name a Democrat that lost the National Popular vote and won the Electoral College?

Until then you and Trump need to learn history because the only ones that won the Electoratal College while losing the Popular Vote was Republicans and John Quincy Adams...

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org

I know Trump is ignorant. (Gore and Clinton won the popular vote)

What has to do with the Price of Tea in China?

National Popular vote has never elected the President and a argument can be made for Gore but not for Clinton because as pointed out She lost too many States and Gore lost Florida but had he won his Home State of Tennessee Bush would have never been President.

So before you bash Trump why not learn when you can argue and stop pretending Clinton was Popular across this country and she was only Popular in certain states which is why she lost the Electoral College!

Well then its about time it is done away with. The reason it was started is because the rich white men were the only ones that could read and travel. Those small non populous states are represented in the congress. We should also take away one of their Senators.

Typical wanna be dictator. When the system thwarts you, change the system. I hope I am long dead by the time the revolt you seem to desire comes to pass.

 

[xyz]

Name a Democrat that lost the National Popular vote and won the Electoral College?

Until then you and Trump need to learn history because the only ones that won the Electoratal College while losing the Popular Vote was Republicans and John Quincy Adams...

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org

The Democratic-Republicans was the party that became the two parties of the same names. The Federalists do not exist anymore, and if they did the EC probably wouldn't exist any more.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

You know how the lefists are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and abolish the Electoral College? Well, small states only agreed to join the union based on an agreement to the great compromise when the country was founded decreeing that each state got two votes and an additional number of votes based on their population. The reasoning behind the compromise has not changed. I say that if the Supreme Court does not strike down the current marxist power struggle to abolish the EC, we should at least ammend the constitution to grant states the right to secede if the Electoral College is abolished. The smaller states joined the union under the mutual agreement to the compromise we know as the Electoral College and if this country can't stand by the terms of that agreement, then we should not expect others to.

You know how the lefists are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and abolish the Electoral College? Well, small states only agreed to join the union based on an agreement to the great compromise when the country was founded decreeing that each state got two votes and an additional number of votes based on their population. The reasoning behind the compromise has not changed. I say that if the Supreme Court does not strike down the current marxist power struggle to abolish the EC, we should at least ammend the constitution to grant states the right to secede if the Electoral College is abolished. The smaller states joined the union under the mutual agreement to the compromise we know as the Electoral College and if this country can't stand by the terms of that agreement, then we should not expect others to.

The Corrupt Democrats can't win fairly.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Let’s kick the states that are bypassing the Electoral College out of the union.

 

[jwoodie]

Why are we debating whether a provision of the Constitution should countermanded? If you want to change the Constitution, AMEND IT. Or do you simply want to disenfranchise 3/4 of the States?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yes, most conservatives are truly this stupid and ignorant.

That comment fails as an Ad hominem fallacy

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I know Trump is ignorant. (Gore and Clinton won the popular vote)

Clinton only won a plurality, actually, not a majority

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The Electoral College is one of the checks against the Mob that the Founders were so concerned about.

No it isn't. Most of the framers were rather partial to a direct popular election. But the electoral college was conceived as a mechanism that would allow select states to continue engaging in widespread disenfranchisement without sacrificing influence in the Presidential selection process. So the truth is that the electoral college was a means for the elitist few to preserve their tyranny over the majority.

 

[westwall]

The Electoral College is one of the checks against the Mob that the Founders were so concerned about.

No it isn't. Most of the framers were rather partial to a direct popular election. But the electoral college was conceived as a mechanism that would allow select states to continue engaging in widespread disenfranchisement without sacrificing influence in the Presidential selection process. So the truth is that the electoral college was a means for the elitist few to preserve their tyranny over the majority.

Wrong. If your claim were true we would have devolved into a true Democracy, and perished as a country, long ago. Unlike you the Founders were highly educated people. I suggest you begin your education with History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. he was a historian who lived through that madness and that book is one of the primary reasons we were founded as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, and NOT a democracy.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

You know how the lefists are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and abolish the Electoral College? Well, small states only agreed to join the union based on an agreement to the great compromise when the country was founded decreeing that each state got two votes and an additional number of votes based on their population. The reasoning behind the compromise has not changed. I say that if the Supreme Court does not strike down the current marxist power struggle to abolish the EC, we should at least ammend the constitution to grant states the right to secede if the Electoral College is abolished. The smaller states joined the union under the mutual agreement to the compromise we know as the Electoral College and if this country can't stand by the terms of that agreement, then we should not expect others to.

Yes, most conservatives are truly this stupid and ignorant.

The Electoral College can be eliminated only by an amendment to the Constitution – once the Constitution is amended, it’s beyond the purview of the Supreme Court to ‘strike down.’

And the amendment process functions independent of the Supreme Court, which has no authority to interfere with that process.

The best example of this would be the 14th Amendment rendering void the Dred Scott decision.

Conservatives couldn’t care less about ‘preserving’ the Electoral Collage or the ‘original intent’ of the Framers. Their defense of the Electoral College is solely partisan, electing Republican presidents contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

Typical progressive bullshit, you'll quote the Constitution until it doesn't suit you.

 

[JWBooth]

Nobody gives a shit about the EC until their candidate loses.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Fact is Hillary won the National Popular vote because of her four million plus win in California, but lost more States which the Electoral College easily can prove.

That makes no sense, and it's really getting old to hear this nonsense. Clinton won the popular vote because of people in all 50 states. Being in California does not force an individual to vote for a Democrat, unless we preserve the electoral college. Donald received 4.5 million votes in Cali. That is 4.5 million individuals who made a choice to vote for the Republican.

The whole idea that states would choose the President in a popular election system is self contradictory on its face. It's no more logical than claiming that the President is a monarch.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Wrong. If your claim were true we would have devolved into a true Democracy, and perished as a country, long ago.

What kind of bullshit claim is that? You're just making up pretend would-be results that have no connection to reality, and are entirely divorced from the historical facts of our country and of the Philadelphia convention where the Framers created the constitution and actually debated all of this.

Unlike you the Founders were highly educated people. I suggest you begin your education with History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides.

The Peloponnesian War has nothing to do with this. Instead of rambling about European events happening around two thousand years before the Philadelphia convention, you should stick to studying the actual Philadelphia convention in order to learn what happened at the Philadelphia convention. I realize it's an unorthodox idea, but if you try it you'll learn quite a bit.

Fact: During the Philadelphia convention the Framers debated the selection method for the Presidency at length. The earliest plan (the Virginia Plan) initially proposed the President be selected by Congress, in imitation of the Framers' already known Westminster system where the Prime Minister is selected by Parliament (incidentally, also comparable to how the continental congress selected their president under the Articles of Confederation ). However, upon discussion it was realized that such a the President of the United States was meant to be independent of the legislature (unlike the President of the Continental Congress under the AOC and the Westminster system). Therefore, another method of selection was sought. Direct selection by the people was debated favorably for the most part, but slave-heavy states who largely disenfranchised the majority of their residents were vehemently opposed to this, as the only way their population would be able to achieve input into the selection process that was proportional to their population size, would be for those states to expand voting rights accordingly. However, they didn't want to do that, because that would mean that black people would be allowed to vote. And if you let black people vote, they might demand an end to slavery. So these small handful of states were willing to refuse ascent to the new constitution altogether.

All of this comes to us from the Framers themselves. No need to appeal to ancient Greeks long dead to tell us what the Framers were thinking.

 

[westwall]

Wrong. If your claim were true we would have devolved into a true Democracy, and perished as a country, long ago.

What kind of bullshit claim is that? You're just making up pretend would-be results that have no connection to reality, and are entirely divorced from the historical facts of our country and of the Philadelphia convention where the Framers created the constitution and actually debated all of this.

Unlike you the Founders were highly educated people. I suggest you begin your education with History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides.

The Peloponnesian War has nothing to do with this. Instead of rambling about European events happening around two thousand years before the Philadelphia convention, you should stick to studying the actual Philadelphia convention in order to learn what happened at the Philadelphia convention. I realize it's an unorthodox idea, but if you try it you'll learn quite a bit.

Fact: During the Philadelphia convention the Framers debated the selection method for the Presidency at length. The earliest plan (the Virginia Plan) initially proposed the President be selected by Congress, in imitation of the Framers' already known Westminster system where the Prime Minister is selected by Parliament (incidentally, also comparable to how the continental congress selected their president under the Articles of Confederation ). However, upon discussion it was realized that such a the President of the United States was meant to be independent of the legislature (unlike the President of the Continental Congress under the AOC and the Westminster system). Therefore, another method of selection was sought. Direct selection by the people was debated favorably for the most part, but slave-heavy states who largely disenfranchised the majority of their residents were vehemently opposed to this, as the only way their population would be able to achieve input into the selection process that was proportional to their population size, would be for those states to expand voting rights accordingly. However, they didn't want to do that, because that would mean that black people would be allowed to vote. And if you let black people vote, they might demand an end to slavery. So these small handful of states were willing to refuse ascent to the new constitution altogether.

All of this comes to us from the Framers themselves. No need to appeal to ancient Greeks long dead to tell us what the Framers were thinking.

The Peloponnesian war is the very reason why our government was constructed as it is. Clearly you need to bone up on your education.

I have given you a beginning, only you can choose to educate yourself.