The Founders Genius Endures: The Electoral System is Awesome

[paperview]

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

What is the answer?

 

[jc456]

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

What is the answer?

Hilarious !

 

[longknife]

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

What is the answer?

Leave it the way it is and allow each state to determine how their electoral votes are to be allotted.

 

[paperview]

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

What is the answer?

Hilarious !

Piss poor response.

 

[kaz]

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

Um ... what the fuck? I directly answered the question

 

[kaz]

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?

If they're going to do that, why not go to the PV? A fundamental difference between liberals and libertarians is you are central government where States only do what they are allowed to do by the Central government and we are State rights where the Federal government only does what we allow them to do. So of course you don't understand why we don't want the popular vote to determine our leaders. Our country wasn't designed that way.

You're just trying to get the EV to your goal, the PV, indirectly if you can't get it directly. And Clinton's winning the popular vote was irrelevant. No one campaigned for that. Trump ignored the big blue States with 10s of millions of Republicans with zero incentive to vote for President while Democrats have well oiled machines in those States. 2 millions votes was nothing to overcome if Republicans had more incentive to vote

 

[paperview]

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

Um ... what the fuck? I directly answered the question

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

You were nonresponsive on that.

Also, what do think about the proportional method per state - closer to the actual percentages?

ETA: We cross-posted as you addressed this last question.

 

[kaz]

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?

You didn't make an argument, you only proposed another system and said "why not?"

 

[kaz]

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

What is the answer?

1) It further undermines State rights

2) It limits the ability of perpetual cheaters like California (illegal aliens) and Illinois (direct fraud) to steal elections. PV would uncap the number of votes they can manufacture

 

[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?

If they're going to do that, why not go to the PV? A fundamental difference between liberals and libertarians is you are central government where States only do what they are allowed to do by the Central government and we are State rights where the Federal government only does what we allow them to do. So of course you don't understand why we don't want the popular vote to determine our leaders. Our country wasn't designed that way.

You're just trying to get the EV to your goal, the PV, indirectly if you can't get it directly. And Clinton's winning the popular vote was irrelevant. No one campaigned for that. Trump ignored the big blue States with 10s of millions of Republicans with zero incentive to vote for President while Democrats have well oiled machines in those States. 2 millions votes was nothing to overcome if Republicans had more incentive to vote

And you'd be arguing the exact opposite had the situation been reversed (and Trump would be going insanely mad) and he won the PV and lost the EC.

Screams of REVOLUTION!!

...like he did last time.

 

[paperview]

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

What is the answer?

1) It further undermines State rights

2) It limits the ability of perpetual cheaters like California (illegal aliens) and Illinois (direct fraud) to steal elections. PV would uncap the number of votes they can manufacture

1) No, it doesn't
2) Ah, you're buying the bogus "illegal aliens" voting and other false claims. Not much more to discuss.

 

[kaz]

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

Um ... what the fuck? I directly answered the question

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

You were nonresponsive on that

OK, here's the trick. Read your question, then read the text from my post I highlighted in blue. Sorry for not explaining that, my bad

 

[kaz]

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?

If they're going to do that, why not go to the PV? A fundamental difference between liberals and libertarians is you are central government where States only do what they are allowed to do by the Central government and we are State rights where the Federal government only does what we allow them to do. So of course you don't understand why we don't want the popular vote to determine our leaders. Our country wasn't designed that way.

You're just trying to get the EV to your goal, the PV, indirectly if you can't get it directly. And Clinton's winning the popular vote was irrelevant. No one campaigned for that. Trump ignored the big blue States with 10s of millions of Republicans with zero incentive to vote for President while Democrats have well oiled machines in those States. 2 millions votes was nothing to overcome if Republicans had more incentive to vote

And you'd be arguing the exact opposite had the situation been reversed (and Trump would be going insanely mad) and he won the PV and lost the EC.

Screams of REVOLUTION!!

...like he did last time.

Bull shit. I've always opposed PV for president. I also didn't vote for Hillary or Trump.

And retard, there is no reason to believe Hillary would have won a popular vote election. SHE DIDN'T RUN FOR THE POPULAR VOTE.

Hey man, Carolina got 20 first down to Denver's 11, so Carolina won the Super Bowl. What you are saying is completely as retarded. Tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York and Illinois alone had no reason to show up for the Presidential part of the election and the Democrats in those States are well oiled machines.

We were having a nice discussion. Stay away from the butt hurt bull shit like that Hillary would have won if it was a popular vote election, you have no idea if she would have or not. NO ONE ran for the popular vote.

At the same time, Russia effected the election, right? You believe campaigns don't effect elections, voters having no reason to show up doesn't effect elections, but Russia does.

Stay away from the stupid shit. If you want PV, fine, but arguing we can just change the rules post election and conclude what would have happened is stupid shit

 

[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?

If they're going to do that, why not go to the PV? A fundamental difference between liberals and libertarians is you are central government where States only do what they are allowed to do by the Central government and we are State rights where the Federal government only does what we allow them to do. So of course you don't understand why we don't want the popular vote to determine our leaders. Our country wasn't designed that way.

You're just trying to get the EV to your goal, the PV, indirectly if you can't get it directly. And Clinton's winning the popular vote was irrelevant. No one campaigned for that. Trump ignored the big blue States with 10s of millions of Republicans with zero incentive to vote for President while Democrats have well oiled machines in those States. 2 millions votes was nothing to overcome if Republicans had more incentive to vote

And you'd be arguing the exact opposite had the situation been reversed (and Trump would be going insanely mad) and he won the PV and lost the EC.

Screams of REVOLUTION!!

...like he did last time.

You think tool much