The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[JakeStarkey]

It's also the only time everyone votes for one spot. It's why the EC was developed by our four fathers to ensure equal vote. You should read the constitution on why. Why is it you libturds always cry and get all mopey. I laugh at your inability to accept defeat

The conturds like jc don't how many were the founding fathers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I think the Democrats as currently comprised want it. I think they realize they couldn't get a constitutional amendment through the rigorous process though. I think many of their own constituents would not want it even, though.

In short, the American people don't want it because that would make money for votes a big boon (way more than it is now). The most corrupt party would win elections with systematic precision.

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit.

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

Obama told illegals to vote. A sitting fucking "president" told people to break our laws. Nobody with a brain gives a sh** about opening the door further for you to cheat.

No integrity is who libturds are

Integrity does not define the conturds.

 

[Unkotare]

.....

My point is it's a stupid system.....

Your point is ignorant and inaccurate (as usual).


How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well

***DO*** ***NOT**** quote my points out of context.....

I never do.

Did you read this part?

"The Framers of our Constitution invented a system that would establish a democracy while protecting minority rights. They created the Electoral College to protect the residents of the smaller states, and they rejected government by simple majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictatorships, not democracy."

-ibid

I didn't read any of it. ....

I didn't think so. Your fear is understandable, but still pathetic.

Here's more of what you missed, hiding there under your bed: "The Electoral College system prevents candidates with only regional appeal from winning. Statistically, having to prevail in a number of sub-elections produces a better result for the country. "

There's more for you to learn.

 

[kaz]

Said Donald Trump in 2012.

I betcha he wishes he could take that one back.

The anarchist is upset we don't have enough Democracy, classic. You actually don't know what an anarchist is, do you?

 

[kaz]

.....

My point is it's a stupid system.....

Your point is ignorant and inaccurate (as usual).


How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well

***DO*** ***NOT**** quote my points out of context.....

I never do.

Did you read this part?

"The Framers of our Constitution invented a system that would establish a democracy while protecting minority rights. They created the Electoral College to protect the residents of the smaller states, and they rejected government by simple majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictatorships, not democracy."

-ibid

I didn't read any of it. ....

I didn't think so. Your fear is understandable, but still pathetic.

Here's more of what you missed, hiding there under your bed: "The Electoral College system prevents candidates with only regional appeal from winning. Statistically, having to prevail in a number of sub-elections produces a better result for the country. "

There's more for you to learn.

No one campaigned for the popular vote win, liberals are just stupid people

 

[Pogo]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I think the Democrats as currently comprised want it. I think they realize they couldn't get a constitutional amendment through the rigorous process though. I think many of their own constituents would not want it even, though.

In short, the American people don't want it because that would make money for votes a big boon (way more than it is now). The most corrupt party would win elections with systematic precision.

What stabs the whole process (of Constitutional Amendment) in the back is that, by definition the EC question is only in play every four years, and that's the only time it ever gets attention. That's why we're riffing off a quote from 2012 -- four years ago. Nobody's thinking about what the EC does halfway through a mid-term. It takes an earth-shaking event, such as the Civil War and abolition of Slavery, to generate enough impetus that it has to be addressed because we're no longer counting black people as three-fifths of a person and the rules have to be rewrit.

That's why it's good to have and keep active a thread like this. The more citizens we can get to think about it, the more its flaws are exposed to the sunshine, and the more this antiquated behemoth inches toward reform.

It's also the only time everyone votes for one spot. It's why the EC was developed by our four fathers to ensure equal vote. You should read the constitution on why. Why is it you libturds always cry and get all mopey. I laugh at your inability to accept defeat

I don't have a "defeat" here Olive Oyl. This is a continuation of what I've always argued about the EC on this site and elsewhere. The only thing new is that Donald Rump agrees with me.

And as far as why the EC was developed, I've gone over that on roughly every other page of this entire thread. You might even avail yourself of those numerous posts.

Of course, that's risky. You might learn something. Are you afraid?

Just post your quote four years ago!

I haven't been ON this site four years yet, Olive. So those posts are going to be on other sites, which I can't link. However I can show you plenty from this site, because I already did it for some other wag who was stupid enough to challenge me on this, and you would have seen this if you had bothered to read this thread.

Wanna see it again?

I'll just continue to put this out there ----

1912.

• Big well-known egomaniac from New York runs for presidency, wins most of the Republican primaries, wins 'em big.
• Party convention ignores him and his primary wins, nominates the Establishment guy from Ohio as its candidate.
• Big well-known egomaniac from New York leaves in a huff, takes his supporters, runs as a third party. Ends up taking enough votes to come in second place, which pushes Establishment Republican candidate to third place.
• Democrat gets less than 42% of the popular vote, but comes in first and wins Electoral College vote by a landslide.

Just sayin'.

That is a rather unrealistic assessment of 2016 Presidential Politics. A vote for anyone other than Drumpf of Clinton is wasted in our system. If you wish to discuss better ways to elect the President, I'm all ears but in the current framework, a vote for Mr. Johnson is wasted in the final analysis. It may satisfy some internal desire to not lend support to either major party candidate and that is all well and good but our system is what it is; Sorry.

I disagree, for the same reason that our system is what it is. Meaning, due to the Electoral College system, if your state is a lock for a red vote or a lock for a blue vote, then your contribution to (or against) that red or blue state vote, has no meaning at all, because it has no effect whatsoever. But by voting 3P you can at least make the 'NOTA' statement that the binary system is not acceptable.

I've certainly done that, though I would not have if the EC system did not exist.

And beyond that Duopoly construction there's the problem of the Electoral College, meaning that anyone who lives in a lock-red or lock-blue state cannot cast a vote for anything but a third party that has any meaning at all. That red or blue candy is getting your state vote regardless whether you vote for him, against him, or just stay home. It makes not a whit of difference.

So you can go cast a vote for Johnson or Nader or Perot as a protest but as long as the sheep rule, the sheep rule and it generates no more effect than "oh isn't that cute, somebody voted for Nader, now let's return to the big screen where Tweedle Dee is closing ground on Tweedle Dum, isn't that exciting, kids?".

Which brings us to the Media that plays a vital role in perpetuating Same Old Thing..... which is why it's absurd to call the MSM "liberal media" --- perpetuating the SOT is as conservative as it gets.

I did that in 2000.
Of course, I had the luxury of doing that as I was living in a locked-red state, which meant my vote for either of the Duopoly flavors would mean nothing. So I made it mean something.

Anybody who's in a locked-red or locked-blue state should do the same. It's the patriotic thing to do. With the electoral college bullshit, your red or blue vote, whether it's for or against the trend, means absolutely nothing anyway. Make it count for something.

That little sample is going back THREE TO SIX MONTHS.

That other wag? When I posted this he ran away and never came back. Let's see what you do.

 

[kaz]

If we didn't have the EC, Trump would have simply used a different strategy and would still have won. Get over it, libs, Hillary lost. Deal with it.

That is a fool statement by you. If it had been a winner take all victory by majority vote, she would have won easily.

I have to defend S.J. here at least in part. Had we a direct PV system rather than our states voting on our behalf, then obviously every candidate's campaign strategy would be different. They'd be concentrating on plaes where they had the best chance of generating new votes, not in states that were closely contested because the winner takes all. Hillary for example might have gone to Alaska. Or Utah. Places where she's little known on a direct basis. So he is correct that Rump would have used a different strategy. Everybody would.

What the outcome would have been is far more a reach though. The PV doesn't support his conclusion. That would have had to be turned around.

In any event this is yet another argument for abolishing the antiquated EC -- it would expose vast swaths of the electorate to candidates they have little experience with, because the EC dictates that their state is already a "lock" and they don't need to. That would change.

You still don't get it. Listen carefully and put your partisan guard down for a minute. Clinton got more PVs than Trump because of California being so heavily populated, and being a welfare nanny state, she got far more votes. Trump could have spent more time in Texas and racked up many more votes (which is what he would have done if the EC didn't exist). He also would have spent more time in California and rack up many more votes. You still don't grasp this.

As I just said above --- changing how the process works WOULD (not would not) change how campaigning works. But as I also pointed out, you don't know what the results of that would have been.

Go ahead -- prove me wrong.

The EC is not going anywhere, because voting would be a joke without it in national politics... fact

Should elections be across the country or in a narrow strip of cities on the east and west coast? I'd say the former, the liberals want the latter

 

[peach174]

Said Donald Trump in 2012.

I betcha he wishes he could take that one back.

Why?
He was right it stopped the dictatorial Social Democracy.

 

[Pogo]

So a game ends and one team won 21 to 14. You're arguing that the team with 14 won, they got more first downs. Bull

True, that is indeed bullshit. Because this thread isn't about any particular election, much as you whiny hiny shallow thinkers want to change the topic TO that. Rump brought this up in 2012. He literally wrote the thread title. And he was right.

Oh and at the same time he also wrote that we should have a "revolution in this country" when the pop vote winner doesn't get the office. Which irony of ironies is what he's on the other end of right now.

But none of this has anything to do with the sports event you partisan hacks want to pervert the election system into. If it were a sports event you'd have one team on the field running plays and then the other, and a separate body who's not a part of either team would decide, "the Falcons played slightly better, so they get all the points, game over, final score 100 to 0".

Bull, no one's goal was winning the count of first downs, just they wanted first downs to win the point count. Trump didn't go to or advertise in any big cities or solid blue Democrat States. Hillary winning the popular vote is completely irrelevant, no one campaigned for that end

Exactly -- if we ran under a PV system ----- you know the same way you already elect your governor, without "county electoral votes" --- then the entire campaign approach would change with it. You wouldn't see them concentrating where the polls tell them to go because there's a windfall there and ignoring everybody else. They'd go see a lot more people.

Oh we couldn't have that -- more people informed?

 

[Pogo]

Said Donald Trump in 2012.

I betcha he wishes he could take that one back.

Why?
He was right it stopped the dictatorial Social Democracy.

Mitt Romney represented "social democracy"?

Not sure I've heard that one before....

 

[kaz]

So a game ends and one team won 21 to 14. You're arguing that the team with 14 won, they got more first downs. Bull

True, that is indeed bullshit. Because this thread isn't about any particular election, much as you whiny hiny shallow thinkers want to change the topic TO that. Rump brought this up in 2012. He literally wrote the thread title. And he was right.

Oh and at the same time he also wrote that we should have a "revolution in this country" when the pop vote winner doesn't get the office. Which irony of ironies is what he's on the other end of right now.

But none of this has anything to do with the sports event you partisan hacks want to pervert the election system into. If it were a sports event you'd have one team on the field running plays and then the other, and a separate body who's not a part of either team would decide, "the Falcons played slightly better, so they get all the points, game over, final score 100 to 0".

Bull, no one's goal was winning the count of first downs, just they wanted first downs to win the point count. Trump didn't go to or advertise in any big cities or solid blue Democrat States. Hillary winning the popular vote is completely irrelevant, no one campaigned for that end

Exactly -- if we ran under a PV system ----- you know the same way you already elect your governor, without "county electoral votes" --- then the entire campaign approach would change with it. You wouldn't see them concentrating where the polls tell them to go because there's a windfall there and ignoring everybody else. They'd go see a lot more people.

Oh we couldn't have that -- more people informed?

Counties are not the delineation in the Constitution, States are. You're just making up more shit.

The Founders created the EC specifically to prevent our Federal government from being a "democracy." The term was never used until the 20th century.

You want to be part of the herd, I want to be an individual, we have different and mutually exclusive goals. I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to leave me alone. You want to tell me what to do.

The EC protects me, at least a little. You want it gone to remove my protection ... from you ...

 

[Pogo]

Counties are not the delineation in the Constitution, States are. You're just making up more shit.

The comparison is entirely appropriate. The other parrots here have been squawking about "Big" states and/or "cities" somehow "taking the vote away" from smaller, rural ones. Which is horseshit, because when Pennsylvania elects a governor, nobody's squawking about Philadelphia votes "counting for more" than Tamaqua and therefore they should be sifted through an EC system. Nobody makes that argument because it ISN'T an argument. Yet somehow in the POTUS election --- it is? Dooooon't think so. Logic doesn't change. Every Pennsylvanian votes equally for their Governor just as every American should vote equally for their President. There's no difference.

The Founders created the EC specifically to prevent our Federal government from being a "democracy." The term was never used until the 20th century.

I don't give a FF when the "term was used", "democracy" in this sense means the People have control through their vote. When the EC was formed we didn't have a PV anyway. And it was created to protect the interests of the slave states --- that ain't going away either. Just to be clear on what it's purpose was, and what it wasn't.

You want to be part of the herd, I want to be an individual, we have different and mutually exclusive goals. I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to leave me alone. You want to tell me what to do.

Excellent point because that's exactly what the EC prevents --- your individual vote counting for something. That is, unless you live in a "battleground" state, like I do.

I actually had a vote in this election. My relatives and friends in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, Vermont and Washington --- did not. Not because their states voted this way or that way .... but because their vote was already decided for them whether they liked it or not, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it because Mommy Electoral College Says No.

There's just no way around that. Wags can come in here all day and night trying to change the subject to specific elections but that doesn't even touch the point.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

Shh, that is too serious.

Let's just gleefully bask in the irony.

And I think you should.

Maybe he will turn the WH over to HIllary.

Of course, he can't legally do that.

He can quit...but he can't name his successor.

 

[kaz]

Counties are not the delineation in the Constitution, States are. You're just making up more shit.

The comparison is entirely appropriate. The other parrots here have been squawking about "Big" states and/or "cities" somehow "taking the vote away" from smaller, rural ones. Which is horseshit, because when Pennsylvania elects a governor, nobody's squawking about Philadelphia votes "counting for more" than Tamaqua and therefore they should be sifted through an EC system. Nobody makes that argument because it ISN'T an argument. Yet somehow in the POTUS election --- it is? Dooooon't think so. Logic doesn't change. Every Pennsylvanian votes equally for their Governor just as every American should vote equally for their President. There's no difference.

The Founders created the EC specifically to prevent our Federal government from being a "democracy." The term was never used until the 20th century.

I don't give a FF when the "term was used", "democracy" in this sense means the People have control through their vote. When the EC was formed we didn't have a PV anyway. And it was created to protect the interests of the slave states --- that ain't going away either. Just to be clear on what it's purpose was, and what it wasn't.

You want to be part of the herd, I want to be an individual, we have different and mutually exclusive goals. I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to leave me alone. You want to tell me what to do.

Excellent point because that's exactly what the EC prevents --- your individual vote counting for something. That is, unless you live in a "battleground" state, like I do.

I actually had a vote in this election. My relatives and friends in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, Vermont and Washington --- did not. Not because their states voted this way or that way .... but because their vote was already decided for them whether they liked it or not, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it because Mommy Electoral College Says No.

There's just no way around that. Wags can come in here all day and night trying to change the subject to specific elections but that doesn't even touch the point.

You know we both live in North Carolina, retard

 

[Pogo]

Counties are not the delineation in the Constitution, States are. You're just making up more shit.

The comparison is entirely appropriate. The other parrots here have been squawking about "Big" states and/or "cities" somehow "taking the vote away" from smaller, rural ones. Which is horseshit, because when Pennsylvania elects a governor, nobody's squawking about Philadelphia votes "counting for more" than Tamaqua and therefore they should be sifted through an EC system. Nobody makes that argument because it ISN'T an argument. Yet somehow in the POTUS election --- it is? Dooooon't think so. Logic doesn't change. Every Pennsylvanian votes equally for their Governor just as every American should vote equally for their President. There's no difference.

The Founders created the EC specifically to prevent our Federal government from being a "democracy." The term was never used until the 20th century.

I don't give a FF when the "term was used", "democracy" in this sense means the People have control through their vote. When the EC was formed we didn't have a PV anyway. And it was created to protect the interests of the slave states --- that ain't going away either. Just to be clear on what it's purpose was, and what it wasn't.

You want to be part of the herd, I want to be an individual, we have different and mutually exclusive goals. I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to leave me alone. You want to tell me what to do.

Excellent point because that's exactly what the EC prevents --- your individual vote counting for something. That is, unless you live in a "battleground" state, like I do.

I actually had a vote in this election. My relatives and friends in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, Vermont and Washington --- did not. Not because their states voted this way or that way .... but because their vote was already decided for them whether they liked it or not, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it because Mommy Electoral College Says No.

There's just no way around that. Wags can come in here all day and night trying to change the subject to specific elections but that doesn't even touch the point.

You know we both live in North Carolina, retard

No, I didn't know where you live, which is why I picked a neutral example of a place I know.

Hell I still don't even know your gender. That was made murky by a previous avatar, just as the present one points to Philadelphia.

But to rehash an earlier example, you and I had a vote in the recent election, solely because our state was in play. The states I cited above --- California, Texas et al --- did not. The EC took their vote away from them. Or to be exact, the EC plus the polls. Hence my point that the EC makes us dependent on polls. And I don't think that's a good thing either. Maybe you do. I dunno. You prolly won't say.

 

[jc456]

So a game ends and one team won 21 to 14. You're arguing that the team with 14 won, they got more first downs. Bull

True, that is indeed bullshit. Because this thread isn't about any particular election, much as you whiny hiny shallow thinkers want to change the topic TO that. Rump brought this up in 2012. He literally wrote the thread title. And he was right.

Oh and at the same time he also wrote that we should have a "revolution in this country" when the pop vote winner doesn't get the office. Which irony of ironies is what he's on the other end of right now.

But none of this has anything to do with the sports event you partisan hacks want to pervert the election system into. If it were a sports event you'd have one team on the field running plays and then the other, and a separate body who's not a part of either team would decide, "the Falcons played slightly better, so they get all the points, game over, final score 100 to 0".

Bull, no one's goal was winning the count of first downs, just they wanted first downs to win the point count. Trump didn't go to or advertise in any big cities or solid blue Democrat States. Hillary winning the popular vote is completely irrelevant, no one campaigned for that end

Exactly -- if we ran under a PV system ----- you know the same way you already elect your governor, without "county electoral votes" --- then the entire campaign approach would change with it. You wouldn't see them concentrating where the polls tell them to go because there's a windfall there and ignoring everybody else. They'd go see a lot more people.

Oh we couldn't have that -- more people informed?

Counties are not the delineation in the Constitution, States are. You're just making up more shit.

The Founders created the EC specifically to prevent our Federal government from being a "democracy." The term was never used until the 20th century.

You want to be part of the herd, I want to be an individual, we have different and mutually exclusive goals. I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to leave me alone. You want to tell me what to do.

The EC protects me, at least a little. You want it gone to remove my protection ... from you ...

I couldn't have said that better

 

[jc456]

Counties are not the delineation in the Constitution, States are. You're just making up more shit.

The comparison is entirely appropriate. The other parrots here have been squawking about "Big" states and/or "cities" somehow "taking the vote away" from smaller, rural ones. Which is horseshit, because when Pennsylvania elects a governor, nobody's squawking about Philadelphia votes "counting for more" than Tamaqua and therefore they should be sifted through an EC system. Nobody makes that argument because it ISN'T an argument. Yet somehow in the POTUS election --- it is? Dooooon't think so. Logic doesn't change. Every Pennsylvanian votes equally for their Governor just as every American should vote equally for their President. There's no difference.

The Founders created the EC specifically to prevent our Federal government from being a "democracy." The term was never used until the 20th century.

I don't give a FF when the "term was used", "democracy" in this sense means the People have control through their vote. When the EC was formed we didn't have a PV anyway. And it was created to protect the interests of the slave states --- that ain't going away either. Just to be clear on what it's purpose was, and what it wasn't.

You want to be part of the herd, I want to be an individual, we have different and mutually exclusive goals. I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to leave me alone. You want to tell me what to do.

Excellent point because that's exactly what the EC prevents --- your individual vote counting for something. That is, unless you live in a "battleground" state, like I do.

I actually had a vote in this election. My relatives and friends in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, Vermont and Washington --- did not. Not because their states voted this way or that way .... but because their vote was already decided for them whether they liked it or not, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it because Mommy Electoral College Says No.

There's just no way around that. Wags can come in here all day and night trying to change the subject to specific elections but that doesn't even touch the point.

Shut up already

 

[paperview]

Counties are not the delineation in the Constitution, States are. You're just making up more shit.

The comparison is entirely appropriate. The other parrots here have been squawking about "Big" states and/or "cities" somehow "taking the vote away" from smaller, rural ones. Which is horseshit, because when Pennsylvania elects a governor, nobody's squawking about Philadelphia votes "counting for more" than Tamaqua and therefore they should be sifted through an EC system. Nobody makes that argument because it ISN'T an argument. Yet somehow in the POTUS election --- it is? Dooooon't think so. Logic doesn't change. Every Pennsylvanian votes equally for their Governor just as every American should vote equally for their President. There's no difference.

The Founders created the EC specifically to prevent our Federal government from being a "democracy." The term was never used until the 20th century.

I don't give a FF when the "term was used", "democracy" in this sense means the People have control through their vote. When the EC was formed we didn't have a PV anyway. And it was created to protect the interests of the slave states --- that ain't going away either. Just to be clear on what it's purpose was, and what it wasn't.

You want to be part of the herd, I want to be an individual, we have different and mutually exclusive goals. I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to leave me alone. You want to tell me what to do.

Excellent point because that's exactly what the EC prevents --- your individual vote counting for something. That is, unless you live in a "battleground" state, like I do.

I actually had a vote in this election. My relatives and friends in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, Vermont and Washington --- did not. Not because their states voted this way or that way .... but because their vote was already decided for them whether they liked it or not, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it because Mommy Electoral College Says No.

There's just no way around that. Wags can come in here all day and night trying to change the subject to specific elections but that doesn't even touch the point.

Shut up already

Who the hell are you to tell people to shut up?

 

[jc456]

Counties are not the delineation in the Constitution, States are. You're just making up more shit.

The comparison is entirely appropriate. The other parrots here have been squawking about "Big" states and/or "cities" somehow "taking the vote away" from smaller, rural ones. Which is horseshit, because when Pennsylvania elects a governor, nobody's squawking about Philadelphia votes "counting for more" than Tamaqua and therefore they should be sifted through an EC system. Nobody makes that argument because it ISN'T an argument. Yet somehow in the POTUS election --- it is? Dooooon't think so. Logic doesn't change. Every Pennsylvanian votes equally for their Governor just as every American should vote equally for their President. There's no difference.

The Founders created the EC specifically to prevent our Federal government from being a "democracy." The term was never used until the 20th century.

I don't give a FF when the "term was used", "democracy" in this sense means the People have control through their vote. When the EC was formed we didn't have a PV anyway. And it was created to protect the interests of the slave states --- that ain't going away either. Just to be clear on what it's purpose was, and what it wasn't.

You want to be part of the herd, I want to be an individual, we have different and mutually exclusive goals. I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to leave me alone. You want to tell me what to do.

Excellent point because that's exactly what the EC prevents --- your individual vote counting for something. That is, unless you live in a "battleground" state, like I do.

I actually had a vote in this election. My relatives and friends in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, Vermont and Washington --- did not. Not because their states voted this way or that way .... but because their vote was already decided for them whether they liked it or not, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it because Mommy Electoral College Says No.

There's just no way around that. Wags can come in here all day and night trying to change the subject to specific elections but that doesn't even touch the point.

Shut up already

Who the hell are you to tell people to shut up?

Who are they to dispute our constitution? Was the election illegal?

Are you saying 60,000,000 Americans can't have their votes counted?

So who the fk do you think you are?

Oh that's right, sore fkn loser!

 

[kaz]

Counties are not the delineation in the Constitution, States are. You're just making up more shit.

The comparison is entirely appropriate. The other parrots here have been squawking about "Big" states and/or "cities" somehow "taking the vote away" from smaller, rural ones. Which is horseshit, because when Pennsylvania elects a governor, nobody's squawking about Philadelphia votes "counting for more" than Tamaqua and therefore they should be sifted through an EC system. Nobody makes that argument because it ISN'T an argument. Yet somehow in the POTUS election --- it is? Dooooon't think so. Logic doesn't change. Every Pennsylvanian votes equally for their Governor just as every American should vote equally for their President. There's no difference.

The Founders created the EC specifically to prevent our Federal government from being a "democracy." The term was never used until the 20th century.

I don't give a FF when the "term was used", "democracy" in this sense means the People have control through their vote. When the EC was formed we didn't have a PV anyway. And it was created to protect the interests of the slave states --- that ain't going away either. Just to be clear on what it's purpose was, and what it wasn't.

You want to be part of the herd, I want to be an individual, we have different and mutually exclusive goals. I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to leave me alone. You want to tell me what to do.

Excellent point because that's exactly what the EC prevents --- your individual vote counting for something. That is, unless you live in a "battleground" state, like I do.

I actually had a vote in this election. My relatives and friends in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, Vermont and Washington --- did not. Not because their states voted this way or that way .... but because their vote was already decided for them whether they liked it or not, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it because Mommy Electoral College Says No.

There's just no way around that. Wags can come in here all day and night trying to change the subject to specific elections but that doesn't even touch the point.

You know we both live in North Carolina, retard

No, I didn't know where you live, which is why I picked a neutral example of a place I know.

Hell I still don't even know your gender. That was made murky by a previous avatar, just as the present one points to Philadelphia.

But to rehash an earlier example, you and I had a vote in the recent election, solely because our state was in play. The states I cited above --- California, Texas et al --- did not. The EC took their vote away from them. Or to be exact, the EC plus the polls. Hence my point that the EC makes us dependent on polls. And I don't think that's a good thing either. Maybe you do. I dunno. You prolly won't say.

You don't know what State I live in or my gender? Just curious, what happened to your long term memory? Was it an accident? Was it self inflicted, like alcohol abuse? Why don't you retain information?