Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,395
- 2,180
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The state's popular vote compact is dead
- Thread starter EvilCat Breath
- Start date
HappyJoy
Platinum Member
- Apr 15, 2015
- 32,056
- 5,943
- 1,140
- Banned
- #142
Read a bit, bud. The founders designed this nation as a representative republic for a reason. They understood that more populated areas would inflict their will on less populated ones, i.e. mob rule. That would effectively leave some regions without representation. The founders were pretty adamant that individuals be provided representation of their interests. Sometimes, the mob will not prevail.Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.
Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.
Difference Between Democracy and Republic (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences
They designed the electoral college so that the powers that be could prevent the population from electing an undesirable. They had no way of knowing that a state like California or Texas would vastly outnumber states like Montana, Wyoming or either of the Dakotas.
BTW, we are a representitive democracy where we vote (democracy part) politicians to represent us (Republic part). There are very, very few direct democracies in the world, only one I can think of.
From your link:
The Republic is the representative democracy where there is an elected chief of the state, who serves the state for a certain period, known as the President. In this political system, the government cannot take away the inalienable rights of the individual. In other words, the right of an individual cannot be overridden by the masses.
No mention of an electoral college being necessary either, cuz it has nothing to do with our form of government.
And they didn't think stupid liberals would allow illegal rapist killer Mexicans to vote either.
.
You're the guy that supports Gabbard, right?
So?
I am not a single issue voter like you
What? Single issue?
Socialized healthcare
No wall
pro gay rights (at least now she is)
pro choice
eliminate college tuition
Which of the many issues do you agree with Gabbard?
Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules
A state may not direct the votes of electors.
Doesn't the challenge by certain states support the reasoning behind your Founding Father instituting the E.C in the first place?
You left the British Monarchy for a reason
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President, and who got appointed to the Supreme Court as well, and the problem with that is the railroads and other big businesses controlled the statehouses and therefore the Senate, especially after the Civil War and the corrupt Chase Court. That was why 'the Gilded Age' was so 'Gilded' for big business, so eventually that had to change to include both Houses of Congress.
Last edited:
Democrats are the biggest election cheaters since Xi. They can't win elections without cheating
The ruling is wrong.
It's not democrats who do all they can to prevent people from voting.
There is no credible evidence of any democrat cheating.
republicans did work with russians to win the 2016 election. republicans did use stollen documents in the 2016 election.
BS. We all know now Democrats worked with Russian intelligence agents to sabotage the election, not Trump, so you traitors just need to dream up something even more ridiculous, since your fake news is never going to fly again.
HappyJoy
Platinum Member
- Apr 15, 2015
- 32,056
- 5,943
- 1,140
- Banned
- #145
Thing is we aren't a democracyThe will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.Maybe it is time to get rid of it.Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules
A state may not direct the votes of electors.
Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?
Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.
Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.
We are a representative democracy, like most other democracies are.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules
A state may not direct the votes of electors.
Doesn't the challenge by certain states support the reasoning behind your Founding Father instituting the E.C in the first place?
You left the British Monarchy for a reason
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President, and who got appointed to the Supreme Court as well, and the problem with that is the railroads and other big businesses controlled the statehouses and therefore the Senate, especially after the Civil War and the corrupt Chase Court. That was why 'the Gilded Age' was so 'Gilded' for big business, so eventually that had to change to include both Houses of Congress.
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President,
You want to restate your Senate comment?
ART. IVThing is we aren't a democracyThe will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.Maybe it is time to get rid of it.
Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?
Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.
Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.
We are a representative democracy, like most other democracies are.
Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules
A state may not direct the votes of electors.
Doesn't the challenge by certain states support the reasoning behind your Founding Father instituting the E.C in the first place?
You left the British Monarchy for a reason
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President, and who got appointed to the Supreme Court as well, and the problem with that is the railroads and other big businesses controlled the statehouses and therefore the Senate, especially after the Civil War and the corrupt Chase Court. That was why 'the Gilded Age' was so 'Gilded' for big business, so eventually that had to change to include both Houses of Congress.
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President,
You want to restate your Senate comment?
Why would I? Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed? Was it commies behind it?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules
A state may not direct the votes of electors.
Doesn't the challenge by certain states support the reasoning behind your Founding Father instituting the E.C in the first place?
You left the British Monarchy for a reason
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President, and who got appointed to the Supreme Court as well, and the problem with that is the railroads and other big businesses controlled the statehouses and therefore the Senate, especially after the Civil War and the corrupt Chase Court. That was why 'the Gilded Age' was so 'Gilded' for big business, so eventually that had to change to include both Houses of Congress.
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President,
You want to restate your Senate comment?
Why would I? Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed? Was it commies behind it?
Why would I?
Because you didn't think the Senate chose the President?
Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed?
The 17th let the EC choose the President instead of the Senate?
Here is what I think you meant to say,
"Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the state legislatures elected the Senate"
Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules
A state may not direct the votes of electors.
Doesn't the challenge by certain states support the reasoning behind your Founding Father instituting the E.C in the first place?
You left the British Monarchy for a reason
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President, and who got appointed to the Supreme Court as well, and the problem with that is the railroads and other big businesses controlled the statehouses and therefore the Senate, especially after the Civil War and the corrupt Chase Court. That was why 'the Gilded Age' was so 'Gilded' for big business, so eventually that had to change to include both Houses of Congress.
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President,
You want to restate your Senate comment?
Why would I? Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed? Was it commies behind it?
Why would I?
Because you didn't think the Senate chose the President?
Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed?
The 17th let the EC choose the President instead of the Senate?
Here is what I think you meant to say,
"Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the state legislatures elected the Senate"
Nope., I meant exactly what I said; the Senators were the state political bosses; they controlled the electoral votes of the state as well as the Party machines. Until they finally began to be popularly elected, they controlled who got elected President; they had the most power and wealth, especially after the Civil War. The 17th stripped some of that power away from the Senate.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Doesn't the challenge by certain states support the reasoning behind your Founding Father instituting the E.C in the first place?
You left the British Monarchy for a reason
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President, and who got appointed to the Supreme Court as well, and the problem with that is the railroads and other big businesses controlled the statehouses and therefore the Senate, especially after the Civil War and the corrupt Chase Court. That was why 'the Gilded Age' was so 'Gilded' for big business, so eventually that had to change to include both Houses of Congress.
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President,
You want to restate your Senate comment?
Why would I? Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed? Was it commies behind it?
Why would I?
Because you didn't think the Senate chose the President?
Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed?
The 17th let the EC choose the President instead of the Senate?
Here is what I think you meant to say,
"Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the state legislatures elected the Senate"
Nope., I meant exactly what I said; the Senators were the state political bosses; they controlled the electoral votes of the state as well as the Party machines. Until they finally began to be popularly elected, they controlled who got elected President; they had the most power and wealth, especially after the Civil War. The 17th stripped some of that power away from the Senate.
The senators didn't force the people to vote for their preferred candidate.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Doesn't the challenge by certain states support the reasoning behind your Founding Father instituting the E.C in the first place?
You left the British Monarchy for a reason
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President, and who got appointed to the Supreme Court as well, and the problem with that is the railroads and other big businesses controlled the statehouses and therefore the Senate, especially after the Civil War and the corrupt Chase Court. That was why 'the Gilded Age' was so 'Gilded' for big business, so eventually that had to change to include both Houses of Congress.
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President,
You want to restate your Senate comment?
Why would I? Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed? Was it commies behind it?
Why would I?
Because you didn't think the Senate chose the President?
Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed?
The 17th let the EC choose the President instead of the Senate?
Here is what I think you meant to say,
"Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the state legislatures elected the Senate"
Nope., I meant exactly what I said; the Senators were the state political bosses; they controlled the electoral votes of the state as well as the Party machines. Until they finally began to be popularly elected, they controlled who got elected President; they had the most power and wealth, especially after the Civil War. The 17th stripped some of that power away from the Senate.
The 17th stripped some of that power away from the Senate.
The Senators were so powerful, they allowed the 17th Amendment to be ratified......WOW!
That's some real power.
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President, and who got appointed to the Supreme Court as well, and the problem with that is the railroads and other big businesses controlled the statehouses and therefore the Senate, especially after the Civil War and the corrupt Chase Court. That was why 'the Gilded Age' was so 'Gilded' for big business, so eventually that had to change to include both Houses of Congress.
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President,
You want to restate your Senate comment?
Why would I? Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed? Was it commies behind it?
Why would I?
Because you didn't think the Senate chose the President?
Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed?
The 17th let the EC choose the President instead of the Senate?
Here is what I think you meant to say,
"Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the state legislatures elected the Senate"
Nope., I meant exactly what I said; the Senators were the state political bosses; they controlled the electoral votes of the state as well as the Party machines. Until they finally began to be popularly elected, they controlled who got elected President; they had the most power and wealth, especially after the Civil War. The 17th stripped some of that power away from the Senate.
The senators didn't force the people to vote for their preferred candidate.
The party leaders, mostly those who were also Senators, told them who their candidates would be. But I'm not surprised you don't know that.
lol I guess someone didn't know the States selected the Senators before the 17th amendment.Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President, and who got appointed to the Supreme Court as well, and the problem with that is the railroads and other big businesses controlled the statehouses and therefore the Senate, especially after the Civil War and the corrupt Chase Court. That was why 'the Gilded Age' was so 'Gilded' for big business, so eventually that had to change to include both Houses of Congress.
Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President,
You want to restate your Senate comment?
Why would I? Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed? Was it commies behind it?
Why would I?
Because you didn't think the Senate chose the President?
Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed?
The 17th let the EC choose the President instead of the Senate?
Here is what I think you meant to say,
"Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the state legislatures elected the Senate"
Nope., I meant exactly what I said; the Senators were the state political bosses; they controlled the electoral votes of the state as well as the Party machines. Until they finally began to be popularly elected, they controlled who got elected President; they had the most power and wealth, especially after the Civil War. The 17th stripped some of that power away from the Senate.
The 17th stripped some of that power away from the Senate.
The Senators were so powerful, they allowed the 17th Amendment to be ratified......WOW!
That's some real power.
lol I guess someone didn't know the States selected the Senators before the 17th amendment.Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the Senate determined who was President,
You want to restate your Senate comment?
Why would I? Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed? Was it commies behind it?
Why would I?
Because you didn't think the Senate chose the President?
Do you have some bizarre spin on why the 17th Amendment was passed?
The 17th let the EC choose the President instead of the Senate?
Here is what I think you meant to say,
"Actually the 'Founders' were a pretty elitist bunch; the state legislatures elected the Senate"
Nope., I meant exactly what I said; the Senators were the state political bosses; they controlled the electoral votes of the state as well as the Party machines. Until they finally began to be popularly elected, they controlled who got elected President; they had the most power and wealth, especially after the Civil War. The 17th stripped some of that power away from the Senate.
The 17th stripped some of that power away from the Senate.
The Senators were so powerful, they allowed the 17th Amendment to be ratified......WOW!
That's some real power.
Where did you get that idea? From Todd's silly post? You must be as 'knowledgeable' as Todd, poor reading skills included.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,395
- 2,180
Thing is we aren't a democracyThe will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.Maybe it is time to get rid of it.
Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?
Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.
Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.
We are a representative democracy, like most other democracies are.
Then why is gay marriage legal in California, when the voters said No?
We are a constitutional republic
.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,395
- 2,180
Again so what?Read a bit, bud. The founders designed this nation as a representative republic for a reason. They understood that more populated areas would inflict their will on less populated ones, i.e. mob rule. That would effectively leave some regions without representation. The founders were pretty adamant that individuals be provided representation of their interests. Sometimes, the mob will not prevail.
Difference Between Democracy and Republic (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences
They designed the electoral college so that the powers that be could prevent the population from electing an undesirable. They had no way of knowing that a state like California or Texas would vastly outnumber states like Montana, Wyoming or either of the Dakotas.
BTW, we are a representitive democracy where we vote (democracy part) politicians to represent us (Republic part). There are very, very few direct democracies in the world, only one I can think of.
From your link:
The Republic is the representative democracy where there is an elected chief of the state, who serves the state for a certain period, known as the President. In this political system, the government cannot take away the inalienable rights of the individual. In other words, the right of an individual cannot be overridden by the masses.
No mention of an electoral college being necessary either, cuz it has nothing to do with our form of government.
And they didn't think stupid liberals would allow illegal rapist killer Mexicans to vote either.
.
You're the guy that supports Gabbard, right?
So?
I am not a single issue voter like you
What? Single issue?
Socialized healthcare
No wall
pro gay rights (at least now she is)
pro choice
eliminate college tuition
Which of the many issues do you agree with Gabbard?
HappyJoy
Platinum Member
- Apr 15, 2015
- 32,056
- 5,943
- 1,140
- Banned
- #158
Thing is we aren't a democracyThe will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?
Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.
Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.
We are a representative democracy, like most other democracies are.
Then why is gay marriage legal in California, when the voters said No?
We are a constitutional republic
.
It was considered unconstitutional. But that was a state law numb nuts. Unless your point is that California is a democracy but the United States isn't then I'm not really sure why you brought it up.
HappyJoy
Platinum Member
- Apr 15, 2015
- 32,056
- 5,943
- 1,140
- Banned
- #159
Again so what?They designed the electoral college so that the powers that be could prevent the population from electing an undesirable. They had no way of knowing that a state like California or Texas would vastly outnumber states like Montana, Wyoming or either of the Dakotas.
BTW, we are a representitive democracy where we vote (democracy part) politicians to represent us (Republic part). There are very, very few direct democracies in the world, only one I can think of.
From your link:
The Republic is the representative democracy where there is an elected chief of the state, who serves the state for a certain period, known as the President. In this political system, the government cannot take away the inalienable rights of the individual. In other words, the right of an individual cannot be overridden by the masses.
No mention of an electoral college being necessary either, cuz it has nothing to do with our form of government.
And they didn't think stupid liberals would allow illegal rapist killer Mexicans to vote either.
.
You're the guy that supports Gabbard, right?
So?
I am not a single issue voter like you
What? Single issue?
Socialized healthcare
No wall
pro gay rights (at least now she is)
pro choice
eliminate college tuition
Which of the many issues do you agree with Gabbard?
That you support a candidate that you have next to nothing that you agree upon? And you said I was a one issue voter (not sure where that came from).
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,395
- 2,180
Thing is we aren't a democracyThe will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.
Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.
Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.
We are a representative democracy, like most other democracies are.
Then why is gay marriage legal in California, when the voters said No?
We are a constitutional republic
.
It was considered unconstitutional. But that was a state law numb nuts. Unless your point is that California is a democracy but the United States isn't then I'm not really sure why you brought it up.
So now your fucking admitting we are a constitutional republic..
Thanks for playing..
.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 85
- Replies
- 278
- Views
- 4K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 8
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8405
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 478
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-