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

[B. Kidd]

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.

Now that you mention it, it appears the Democrats are setting up the perfect groundwork for Civil War 2.0.

 

[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.

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

California has a lot of Repubs. But not enough as of now. You get 55 EC votes every election. You are invading Texas. Soon enough you will get theirs at some point. Florida is the same way. When you do get it, you will find that having is not the same as wanting. An example will be that we have firefighters in major cities. There are firefighters who over a period of years who become millionaires with pensions and benefits. If they worked in busy areas for much of their careers, there was very little tax base. Then there are firefighters in the sae areas who skated for their careers with very little work. So the taxpayer in a general sense is ripped off. I do not want to insult the person working in that profession. For anyone would do the same thing. This is just a smidgen of the massive issues we have as how the hell do you think we can improve the whole system for everyone when one type of job out of many are paid this way? You want socialism and have used quotas and affirmative action which is needed but now out of bounds and costing us all. So 3 votes in a rural state while watching the excesses of urban largesse is a warning.

 

[Care4all]

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

They are not bypassing it. They are directing, with rules, their electors on how they want them to vote.

This is how the founders wrote it in the Constitution, that the States can choose how they want their electors to vote. It's up to State Legislatures to set their own rules.

That's how we ended up with all States but 2, directing all of their electors, to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their State.... the winner takes ALL electors system.... which does not represent their constituents proportionately at all in the National election, it gives near half of their citizens in their State, no say so in how the electors have to vote, in this National election, zip, zero, nada votes or say so in the National election...

And this new way, telling electors to vote for whomever won the National popular vote, must get their votes.... this too disenfranchises near half the citizens of their vote in a National election.

I like the way my State does it, where the electors are proportionately given to each candidate by the state's popular vote...the vote by District segmented for their US Congressmen districts. then the two extra electors my State gets for their US Senators, votes for the winner of the State.

Trump got 1 elector in District 2, Clinton got 1 elector in District 1, for winning these districts, and Clinton won the overall State popular vote, so the 2 extra electors, went to Clinton.


but basically, because it is up to the States to choose their way of how their electors are chosen and how they should vote, I think there won't be much, anyone can do about it...

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The Peloponnesian war is the very reason why our government was constructed as it is.

 

[rightwinger]

You can’t abolish the EC without an amendment

But states can change the way they allocate votes