The electoral college, the founders had it right

[Issa]

It is dumb that a useless unpopulated state dictates the lives of millions in another state...just stupid.



In their infinite wisdom, the United States ’ Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented.
Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet.
It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
These numbers are astonishing. Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States .
Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State .
Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16 .

Clinton won the popular vote by approx 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan , Richmond & Queens)
Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. ( Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond )
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago , LA , etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.

 

[Wyatt earp]

In their infinite wisdom, the United States ’ Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented.

No, they established the electoral college to satisfy slave states who wanted to disenfranchise large parts of their populations without risking voters in free states overwhelming them to abolish slavery democratically. Also, to establish greater autonomy of the President from Congress. The plan had almost been to have Congress elect the President, but the general feeling was that this could turn the Presidency into Congress' puppet, diminishing the checks and balances between the two branches.

Next time, get educated instead of indoctrinated.

There would of been no United States as we know today with out it, so what's the point of arguing?


.

Arguing over what? You are correct in pointing out that without such a compromise the constitution would never have achieved the needed consensus for ratification. However, if you mean to suggest that the Electoral College should be retained on that basis, then you are arguing a non-sequitur.

Bullshit people's values are not the same in Idaho today then in California, you have people in Idaho not having a problem dressing up as Mexicans for Halloween and people in California pissed in their pants upon hearing it .

Speaking of non-sequitur arguments, how does that add up to slavery protection compromises of yore being an adequate basis for modern day government?

Everyone owned a slave back then it was like owning a cell phone today..


What does that have to do with the fact the EC was setup so Urban areas don't bully rural areas ?



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

In their infinite wisdom, the United States ’ Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented.
Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet.
It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
These numbers are astonishing. Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States .
Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State .
Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16 .

Clinton won the popular vote by approx 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan , Richmond & Queens)
Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. ( Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond )
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago , LA , etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.

Blah, blah, blah.

If the 2016 election had gone the reverse (Trump wins popular vote, loses the EC), you Trumpbots would be freaking out about how unfair the EC is. 100% for certain.

I have never, ever thought the EC is a good idea.

If you don't get the most votes, you didn't win the election.

Trump is POTUS in name only as far as I am concerned.

Translation~ you piss on the Constitution and the American flag



.


.

 

[Papageorgio]

Still obsessing about an election in which your 'choice' won is not healthy.

There is NOTHING like a 'sore winner.'

Maybe one day your illness will get better but prolly not.

And one day you will stop obsessing about an election in where your choice did not win.

I voted for Gary Johnson; I got over that about two years ago.

Couldn’t tell it by your posts.

 

[Papageorgio]

In their infinite wisdom, the United States ’ Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented.
Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet.
It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
These numbers are astonishing. Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States .
Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State .
Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16 .

Clinton won the popular vote by approx 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan , Richmond & Queens)
Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. ( Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond )
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago , LA , etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.

Blah, blah, blah.

If the 2016 election had gone the reverse (Trump wins popular vote, loses the EC), you Trumpbots would be freaking out about how unfair the EC is. 100% for certain.

I have never, ever thought the EC is a good idea.

If you don't get the most votes, you didn't win the election.

Trump is POTUS in name only as far as I am concerned.

The majority would have went to work the next day and by Friday it would be over.

In name only gives him the same force as Obama had, so I guess your opinion is worthless.

 

[Papageorgio]

In their infinite wisdom, the United States ’ Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented.

No, they established the electoral college to satisfy slave states who wanted to disenfranchise large parts of their populations without risking voters in free states overwhelming them to abolish slavery democratically. Also, to establish greater autonomy of the President from Congress. The plan had almost been to have Congress elect the President, but the general feeling was that this could turn the Presidency into Congress' puppet, diminishing the checks and balances between the two branches.

Next time, get educated instead of indoctrinated.

There would of been no United States as we know today with out it, so what's the point of arguing?


.

Arguing over what? You are correct in pointing out that without such a compromise the constitution would never have achieved the needed consensus for ratification. However, if you mean to suggest that the Electoral College should be retained on that basis, then you are arguing a non-sequitur.

Bullshit people's values are not the same in Idaho today then in California, you have people in Idaho not having a problem dressing up as Mexicans for Halloween and people in California pissed in their pants upon hearing it .

Speaking of non-sequitur arguments, how does that add up to slavery protection compromises of yore being an adequate basis for modern day government?

Repeat the lie long enough, is that the way you do it?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are making no sense now. What are you even talking about?

Not making any sense. My question is how many electoral votes should Cali have? You seem to be complaining about it. When was the last time Wyoming actually decided any election? Your argument like all your other arguments is flawed.

I am not complaing, I am stating the fact.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

Wy on the other hand has about .178% of the population of the US and .558% of the EC votes.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

How many representatives and EC votes would they lose if we stopped including illegal aliens for apportionment?

Zero


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

California doesn't have millions of illegal aliens, swelling the state's representation in Congress?

Nope, they are not taken into account for that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Whenever you get desperate you start to lie about me. Why is that?

I never spoke of lives, I spoke of votes. Do try and keep it honest and keep the lies to a minimum this time.

??? You said 300 people are irrelevant. What makes their votes any less relevant than those who live in NYC?

Nothing at all,. That is why you do not ever hear anyone talk about a random 300 people from NYC.

So why did you bring them up and call their votes irrelevant? At what point do votes become relevant in your world? So should those 300 in TX not vote?

I brought them up because people like to talk about how many counties voted each way. It is a stupid thing to talk about as you cannot compare a county of less than 300 to a county of more than a million. They are not equal

But in the example Trump crushed HRC in counties both big and small did he not. Now not in all but in many.

Once again, debating the number of counties that Trump won makes about as much sense as talking about many hot dogs were sold at a football game when discussing who won the game. Counties do not vote, people vote. Why talk about counties?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Again this debate is pointless the rules are in place and both candidates knew what they were. HRC spent double of what DJT did and lost. We can debate changing rules for future elections but this one needs to be put to bed.

Nobody is talking about changing the rules, you just made that up.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, they established the electoral college to satisfy slave states who wanted to disenfranchise large parts of their populations without risking voters in free states overwhelming them to abolish slavery democratically. Also, to establish greater autonomy of the President from Congress. The plan had almost been to have Congress elect the President, but the general feeling was that this could turn the Presidency into Congress' puppet, diminishing the checks and balances between the two branches.

Next time, get educated instead of indoctrinated.

There would of been no United States as we know today with out it, so what's the point of arguing?


.

Arguing over what? You are correct in pointing out that without such a compromise the constitution would never have achieved the needed consensus for ratification. However, if you mean to suggest that the Electoral College should be retained on that basis, then you are arguing a non-sequitur.

Bullshit people's values are not the same in Idaho today then in California, you have people in Idaho not having a problem dressing up as Mexicans for Halloween and people in California pissed in their pants upon hearing it .

Speaking of non-sequitur arguments, how does that add up to slavery protection compromises of yore being an adequate basis for modern day government?

Everyone owned a slave back then it was like owning a cell phone today..


What does that have to do with the fact the EC was setup so Urban areas don't bully rural areas ?



.

That is false, even at the heyday of slavery only 25% of the south owned slaves and almost none of the north.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not making any sense. My question is how many electoral votes should Cali have? You seem to be complaining about it. When was the last time Wyoming actually decided any election? Your argument like all your other arguments is flawed.

I am not complaing, I am stating the fact.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

Wy on the other hand has about .178% of the population of the US and .558% of the EC votes.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

How many representatives and EC votes would they lose if we stopped including illegal aliens for apportionment?

Zero


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

California doesn't have millions of illegal aliens, swelling the state's representation in Congress?

Nope, they are not taken into account for that.

Any proof of your claim?

 

[Wyatt earp]

There would of been no United States as we know today with out it, so what's the point of arguing?


.

Arguing over what? You are correct in pointing out that without such a compromise the constitution would never have achieved the needed consensus for ratification. However, if you mean to suggest that the Electoral College should be retained on that basis, then you are arguing a non-sequitur.

Bullshit people's values are not the same in Idaho today then in California, you have people in Idaho not having a problem dressing up as Mexicans for Halloween and people in California pissed in their pants upon hearing it .

Speaking of non-sequitur arguments, how does that add up to slavery protection compromises of yore being an adequate basis for modern day government?

Everyone owned a slave back then it was like owning a cell phone today..


What does that have to do with the fact the EC was setup so Urban areas don't bully rural areas ?



.

That is false, even at the heyday of slavery only 25% of the south owned slaves and almost none of the north.

Gotcha...


So you admit the civil war was not about slavery, but states rights...


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Not making any sense. My question is how many electoral votes should Cali have? You seem to be complaining about it. When was the last time Wyoming actually decided any election? Your argument like all your other arguments is flawed.

I am not complaing, I am stating the fact.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

Wy on the other hand has about .178% of the population of the US and .558% of the EC votes.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

How many representatives and EC votes would they lose if we stopped including illegal aliens for apportionment?

Zero


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

California doesn't have millions of illegal aliens, swelling the state's representation in Congress?

Nope, they are not taken into account for that.

LMFAO of course they are ...


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not making any sense. My question is how many electoral votes should Cali have? You seem to be complaining about it. When was the last time Wyoming actually decided any election? Your argument like all your other arguments is flawed.

I am not complaing, I am stating the fact.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

Wy on the other hand has about .178% of the population of the US and .558% of the EC votes.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

How many representatives and EC votes would they lose if we stopped including illegal aliens for apportionment?

Zero


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

California doesn't have millions of illegal aliens, swelling the state's representation in Congress?

Nope, they are not taken into account for that.

Are undocumented residents (aliens) in the 50 states included in the apportionment population counts? back to top

Yes, all people (citizens and noncitizens) with a usual residence in the 50 states are to be included in the census and thus in the apportionment counts.

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q16

Census.gov says they are.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am not complaing, I am stating the fact.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

Wy on the other hand has about .178% of the population of the US and .558% of the EC votes.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

How many representatives and EC votes would they lose if we stopped including illegal aliens for apportionment?

Zero


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

California doesn't have millions of illegal aliens, swelling the state's representation in Congress?

Nope, they are not taken into account for that.

LMFAO of course they are ...


.

Counting for Dollars: The Role of the Decennial Census in the Distribution of Federal Funds
Rachel Blanchard Carpenter and Andrew ReamerTuesday, March 9, 2010




DOWNLOAD

• Download Full Report

The federal government’s role in annually dispensing hundreds of billions of dollars to state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals is highly visible and political, with substantial economic impact in every corner of the nation.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Arguing over what? You are correct in pointing out that without such a compromise the constitution would never have achieved the needed consensus for ratification. However, if you mean to suggest that the Electoral College should be retained on that basis, then you are arguing a non-sequitur.

Bullshit people's values are not the same in Idaho today then in California, you have people in Idaho not having a problem dressing up as Mexicans for Halloween and people in California pissed in their pants upon hearing it .

Speaking of non-sequitur arguments, how does that add up to slavery protection compromises of yore being an adequate basis for modern day government?

Everyone owned a slave back then it was like owning a cell phone today..


What does that have to do with the fact the EC was setup so Urban areas don't bully rural areas ?



.

That is false, even at the heyday of slavery only 25% of the south owned slaves and almost none of the north.

Gotcha...


So you admit the civil war was not about slavery, but states rights...


.

Yep, it was about the rights of the states in the south to own other human beings.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am not complaing, I am stating the fact.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

Wy on the other hand has about .178% of the population of the US and .558% of the EC votes.

Cali has about 11% of the population the US and has 10% of the EC votes.

How many representatives and EC votes would they lose if we stopped including illegal aliens for apportionment?

Zero


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

California doesn't have millions of illegal aliens, swelling the state's representation in Congress?

Nope, they are not taken into account for that.

Are undocumented residents (aliens) in the 50 states included in the apportionment population counts? back to top

Yes, all people (citizens and noncitizens) with a usual residence in the 50 states are to be included in the census and thus in the apportionment counts.

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q16

Census.gov says they are.

You think illegal immigrants are resounding to the Census? Really?

Proof please.

 

[candycorn]

In their infinite wisdom, the United States ’ Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented.
Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet.
It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
These numbers are astonishing. Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States .
Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State .
Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16 .

Clinton won the popular vote by approx 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan , Richmond & Queens)
Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. ( Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond )
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago , LA , etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.

Yes the EC is essential.
Hillary got 3 million more votes than the blob

 

[Stormy Daniels]

So you admit the civil war was not about slavery, but states rights.

It was about state's rights....to sanction slavery.

 

[rightwinger]

The founders did not create the electoral college

It’s the 12th amendment. They also didn’t say people born here should automatically be citizens by your logic

Never claimed they did

So you agree they should not be citizens automatically?

I support the 14th amendment
One of our most significant amendments. More important than the second