The Founders Genius Endures: The Electoral System is Awesome

[jc456]

No it's not. Republicans freed slaves democrats wanted to keep the slaves. I am spot on bubba! History backs me and so do you

Substitute Democrat for white southerner all you want. You're very poor at being a provocateur. You're merely triolling

I started it how can I troll myself? You are trolling bubbaand trying to argue a losing point! The facts are the facts and you don't like those facts

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

It is whining because when it's not this it's something else.

You are in possession of a warped sense of reality. Your posts are those of a reactionary. Writing what you just have is a generalization thrown at a group or somebody that symbolizes what you are evidently against. You're tilting at windmills here. You are not addressing me. You are arguing with strawmen and windmills

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

I started it how can I troll myself? You are trolling bubbaand trying to argue a losing point! The facts are the facts and you don't like those facts

You are claiming your attempts at being a reactionary provocateur cannot be construed as being trollish?

 

[BluesLegend]

This is classic liberalism, they love the rules so long as they are winning, but after getting their ass whooped bad several elections in a row, after losing the House, the Senate, the White House, 33 governorships, 69 of the 99 state legislatures, and 2-4 SCOTUS nominations naturally now they want to change the rules and game the system.

They did this in Mass after a Republican got elected senator. They changed the rules to usher in a Dem, then changes the rules right back to keep the Dem in office.

 

[jc456]

I started it how can I troll myself? You are trolling bubbaand trying to argue a losing point! The facts are the facts and you don't like those facts

You are claiming your attempts at being a reactionary provocateur cannot be construed as being trollish?

How can I troll myself?

 

[jc456]

It is whining because when it's not this it's something else.

You are in possession of a warped sense of reality. Your posts are those of a reactionary. Writing what you just have is a generalization thrown at a group or somebody that symbolizes what you are evidently against. You're tilting at windmills here. You are not addressing me. You are arguing with strawmen and windmills

Dude, that's hilarious

 

[kaz]

It is whining because when it's not this it's something else.

You are in possession of a warped sense of reality. Your posts are those of a reactionary. Writing what you just have is a generalization thrown at a group or somebody that symbolizes what you are evidently against. You're tilting at windmills here. You are not addressing me. You are arguing with strawmen and windmills

You're just babbling

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

The Electoral College is actually awesome

Why should a state with a small population get an unfair advantage?

How is 3 EV an "unfair advantage"

 

[longknife]

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

The Electoral College is actually awesome

To repeat - THE PRESIDENT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE!

 

[paperview]

Just out of curiosity, which small states were 'protected' by the election of Trump over Clinton despite his losing the popular vote?

All of them.

Do you think the Founders anticipated electors being chosen based on winner-take-all rules?

Here's the thing when you write it's up to the States. You expect the States to decide. Funny how that works, huh? I'd certainly guess that they'd have seen that though, yes. Think about it, obviously the majority party in a State is going to want all the State delegates to represent them, no?

You didn't answer the question. The winner take all rules for every state (and I don't disagree it's up to the states) came about long after the founders wrote the constitution, and it was, in part, enacted in the "corrupt bargain."

Why not a proportional system?

In Penn., Trump won 2,970,770
Hillary Clinton won 2,926,458 (less than 1% margin)


In Florida: Trump: 4,617,886
Hillary Clinton 4,504,975

Wisconsin with less than 1% of the vote

Pretty damn close, yet those three states account for more electoral votes than California's EC votes.


In NY, Trump won nearly 40% of the vote. Why should those in NY who voted for Trump have to give away all their votes to Hillary?

And vice versa? In Texas, Trump: 4,685,047
Clinton: 3,877,868.

Why not make it proportional closer to the actual percentages?

 

[jc456]

Just out of curiosity, which small states were 'protected' by the election of Trump over Clinton despite his losing the popular vote?

All of them.

Do you think the Founders anticipated electors being chosen based on winner-take-all rules?

Here's the thing when you write it's up to the States. You expect the States to decide. Funny how that works, huh? I'd certainly guess that they'd have seen that though, yes. Think about it, obviously the majority party in a State is going to want all the State delegates to represent them, no?

You didn't answer the question. The winner take all rules for every state (and I don't disagree it's up to the states) came about long after the founders wrote the constitution, and it was, in part, enacted in the "corrupt bargain."

Why not a proportional system?

In Penn., Trump won 2,970,770
Hillary Clinton won 2,926,458 (less than 1% margin)


In Florida: Trump: 4,617,886
Hillary Clinton 4,504,975

Wisconsin with less than 1% of the vote

Pretty damn close, yet those three states account for more electoral votes than California's EC votes.


In NY, Trump won nearly 40% of the vote. Why should those in NY who voted for Trump have to give away all their votes to Hillary?

And vice versa? In Texas, Trump: 4,685,047
Clinton: 3,877,868.

Why not make it proportional closer to the actual percentages?

That was rhetorical right?

 

[ptbw forever]

National Popular Vote

California.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Evidence and proof it's possible and doable

How can I troll myself?

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

National Popular Vote

California.

Check

 

[ptbw forever]

Just out of curiosity, which small states were 'protected' by the election of Trump over Clinton despite his losing the popular vote?

All of them.

Do you think the Founders anticipated electors being chosen based on winner-take-all rules?

Here's the thing when you write it's up to the States. You expect the States to decide. Funny how that works, huh? I'd certainly guess that they'd have seen that though, yes. Think about it, obviously the majority party in a State is going to want all the State delegates to represent them, no?

You didn't answer the question. The winner take all rules for every state (and I don't disagree it's up to the states) came about long after the founders wrote the constitution, and it was, in part, enacted in the "corrupt bargain."

Why not a proportional system?

In Penn., Trump won 2,970,770
Hillary Clinton won 2,926,458 (less than 1% margin)


In Florida: Trump: 4,617,886
Hillary Clinton 4,504,975

Wisconsin with less than 1% of the vote

Pretty damn close, yet those three states account for more electoral votes than California's EC votes.


In NY, Trump won nearly 40% of the vote. Why should those in NY who voted for Trump have to give away all their votes to Hillary?

And vice versa? In Texas, Trump: 4,685,047
Clinton: 3,877,868.

Why not make it proportional closer to the actual percentages?

You mean on top of "faithless" electors?

 

[jc456]

Evidence and proof it's possible and doable

How can I troll myself?

 

[paperview]

Just out of curiosity, which small states were 'protected' by the election of Trump over Clinton despite his losing the popular vote?

All of them.

Do you think the Founders anticipated electors being chosen based on winner-take-all rules?

Here's the thing when you write it's up to the States. You expect the States to decide. Funny how that works, huh? I'd certainly guess that they'd have seen that though, yes. Think about it, obviously the majority party in a State is going to want all the State delegates to represent them, no?

You didn't answer the question. The winner take all rules for every state (and I don't disagree it's up to the states) came about long after the founders wrote the constitution, and it was, in part, enacted in the "corrupt bargain."

Why not a proportional system?

In Penn., Trump won 2,970,770
Hillary Clinton won 2,926,458 (less than 1% margin)


In Florida: Trump: 4,617,886
Hillary Clinton 4,504,975

Wisconsin with less than 1% of the vote

Pretty damn close, yet those three states account for more electoral votes than California's EC votes.


In NY, Trump won nearly 40% of the vote. Why should those in NY who voted for Trump have to give away all their votes to Hillary?

And vice versa? In Texas, Trump: 4,685,047
Clinton: 3,877,868.

Why not make it proportional closer to the actual percentages?

That was rhetorical right?

No. Is this the sum and substance of your rebuttal?

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Evidence and proof it's possible and doable

How can I troll myself?

 

[jc456]

All of them.

Do you think the Founders anticipated electors being chosen based on winner-take-all rules?

Here's the thing when you write it's up to the States. You expect the States to decide. Funny how that works, huh? I'd certainly guess that they'd have seen that though, yes. Think about it, obviously the majority party in a State is going to want all the State delegates to represent them, no?

You didn't answer the question. The winner take all rules for every state (and I don't disagree it's up to the states) came about long after the founders wrote the constitution, and it was, in part, enacted in the "corrupt bargain."

Why not a proportional system?

In Penn., Trump won 2,970,770
Hillary Clinton won 2,926,458 (less than 1% margin)


In Florida: Trump: 4,617,886
Hillary Clinton 4,504,975

Wisconsin with less than 1% of the vote

Pretty damn close, yet those three states account for more electoral votes than California's EC votes.


In NY, Trump won nearly 40% of the vote. Why should those in NY who voted for Trump have to give away all their votes to Hillary?

And vice versa? In Texas, Trump: 4,685,047
Clinton: 3,877,868.

Why not make it proportional closer to the actual percentages?

That was rhetorical right?

No. Is this the sum and substance of your rebuttal?

It's rhetorical cause everyone knows that answer

 

[jc456]

Evidence and proof it's possible and doable

How can I troll myself?