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.
The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
We argued that the Democratic nominations were complete farces and we were told that it didn’t matter, Hillary would have won even if it was fair. Don’t blame the Constitution for not having the foresight to imagine a critter as corrupt as Hillary.
The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
Interesting. One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California. Wyoming has a population of about 580,000 and is worth 3 electoral college votes. That is 1 electoral college vote for every 193,000 people.
California has a population of 39.5 million, which is 68 times more than Wyoming. This means that California should have around 200 electoral college votes, if using the same ratio as Wyoming: 68 x 3 electoral votes = 204. Instead, California only has 55 electoral college votes.
This is completely unfair and the game is rigged to give Repubs a fighting chance in every Presidential election. If California was worth 200 electoral college votes like it should be, then Repubs would never have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential election ever again.
One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This is completely unfair
To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
Dummy, read my previous post. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants more voting power to small states vs large states. (except in the Senate)
Therefore, there is nothing to change, idiot.
Anonymous sources, once again.What treasonous actions did Sessions engage in?
Furthermore, he didn't lie about it. Any rational person would reasonably conclude that "contact" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.
No, he just lied to Congress about meeting with Russians. That's all Sessions did (that we currently know of, anyway). Which is A OK for an immoral, worthless Repug like you.
Franken asked Sessions if anyone in the Trump campaign had "communicated with the Russian government." Shaking the ambassador's hand in a greeting line does not constitute "communicating with the Russian government" by any stretch of the imagination. Only delusional brain damaged snowflakes believe it does.
If Sessions like, then why didn't Herr Mewler indict him for perjury?
Wrong, Repug goober. You never get tired of your bullshit lies. And Sessions very well may get indicted. However, he was smart enough to admit that he already lied to Congress, so Mueller may cut him some slack. --
One U.S. official said that Sessions — who testified that he had no recollection of an April encounter — has provided “misleading” statements that are “contradicted by other evidence.” A former official said that the intelligence indicates that Sessions and Kislyak had “substantive” discussions on matters including Trump’s positions on Russia-related issues and prospects for U.S.-Russia relations in a Trump administration.
Sessions discussed Trump campaign-related matters with Russian ambassador, U.S. intelligence intercepts show
Fake news.
Great retort, goober. In other words, you lost the debate.
The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
We argued that the Democratic nominations were complete farces and we were told that it didn’t matter, Hillary would have won even if it was fair. Don’t blame the Constitution for not having the foresight to imagine a critter as corrupt as Hillary.
Hillary is "corrupt", yet she still defeated Trump by 3 million votes. Probably a lot more than that when you factor in voter suppression.
So what does that say about how sorry Trump is that he couldn't win the popular vote against a flawed candidate like Hillary?
You're not a California snowflake, are you?.States can only do as much as he constitution allows. Federal law is the supreme law of the land.
You're calling any opposition to snowflake idiocy an election tantrum. No special prosecutors, recounts or accusations of fraud occured.Democrats have staged all the Temper tantrums resulting from election results, not Republicans.WTF!?
I was being sarcastic. Had Hillary won like Trump did, there would be a different song being sang around here.
Republicans would not have rioted like the Democrats did and if the Republicans actually did riot. Obama would have asked the National Guard to step in, instead of praising the rioters.
Yes republicans would have and it would have been worse.
Birtherism and the Tea Party were tantrums by republicans.
Two choices...1) The computer defenses on the RNC's computers were better than the DNC's, or 2) Putin hates the Corporate Whore so much he only wanted her stuff hacked.
I support #2.
It was #2. Clinton and Putin both hate each other. Hillary received 3 million more popular votes; therefore, she should be president.
But, she's not and never will be...because she lost more states than Trump and it's the STATES that count.
It ain't about states - it's about people. During state elections, the states can do what they want - but not for national elections. One person - one vote.
You need to read the Constitution. The States LET the people vote, but the individual States could actually choose to cast their votes based on choices made by their Legislatures. It is only about the States.
.States can only do as much as he constitution allows. Federal law is the supreme law of the land.
The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
We argued that the Democratic nominations were complete farces and we were told that it didn’t matter, Hillary would have won even if it was fair. Don’t blame the Constitution for not having the foresight to imagine a critter as corrupt as Hillary.
Hillary is "corrupt", yet she still defeated Trump by 3 million votes. Probably a lot more than that when you factor in voter suppression.
So what does that say about how sorry Trump is that he couldn't win the popular vote against a flawed candidate like Hillary?
You can't be that fucking stupid.The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
Interesting. One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California. Wyoming has a population of about 580,000 and is worth 3 electoral college votes. That is 1 electoral college vote for every 193,000 people.
California has a population of 39.5 million, which is 68 times more than Wyoming. This means that California should have around 200 electoral college votes, if using the same ratio as Wyoming: 68 x 3 electoral votes = 204. Instead, California only has 55 electoral college votes.
This is completely unfair and the game is rigged to give Repubs a fighting chance in every Presidential election. If California was worth 200 electoral college votes like it should be, then Repubs would never have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential election ever again.
One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This is completely unfair
To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
There is no debate. Your evidence is fake news. It also about 9 months old.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
Another left wing butt hurt nutter, if you don’t like the laws, don’t complain and cry, do something to change it. Seriously, you can’t be that dumb.
Dummy, read my previous post. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants more voting power to small states vs large states. (except in the Senate)
Therefore, there is nothing to change, idiot.
Yeah, there is, California doesn’t get 200 Electoral College, write your Congressman or sue the government then you can get you 200 votes, until then nothing will change and you call me an idiot? Lol!
Come on you know the election was a fraud and the russian's put the orange asshat over the top.
You can't be that fucking stupid.Interesting. One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California. Wyoming has a population of about 580,000 and is worth 3 electoral college votes. That is 1 electoral college vote for every 193,000 people.
California has a population of 39.5 million, which is 68 times more than Wyoming. This means that California should have around 200 electoral college votes, if using the same ratio as Wyoming: 68 x 3 electoral votes = 204. Instead, California only has 55 electoral college votes.
This is completely unfair and the game is rigged to give Repubs a fighting chance in every Presidential election. If California was worth 200 electoral college votes like it should be, then Repubs would never have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential election ever again.
One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This is completely unfair
To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
We argued that the Democratic nominations were complete farces and we were told that it didn’t matter, Hillary would have won even if it was fair. Don’t blame the Constitution for not having the foresight to imagine a critter as corrupt as Hillary.
Hillary is "corrupt", yet she still defeated Trump by 3 million votes. Probably a lot more than that when you factor in voter suppression.
So what does that say about how sorry Trump is that he couldn't win the popular vote against a flawed candidate like Hillary?
He really is that stupid.You can't be that fucking stupid.Interesting. One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California. Wyoming has a population of about 580,000 and is worth 3 electoral college votes. That is 1 electoral college vote for every 193,000 people.
California has a population of 39.5 million, which is 68 times more than Wyoming. This means that California should have around 200 electoral college votes, if using the same ratio as Wyoming: 68 x 3 electoral votes = 204. Instead, California only has 55 electoral college votes.
This is completely unfair and the game is rigged to give Repubs a fighting chance in every Presidential election. If California was worth 200 electoral college votes like it should be, then Repubs would never have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential election ever again.
One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This is completely unfair
To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
Another left wing butt hurt nutter, if you don’t like the laws, don’t complain and cry, do something to change it. Seriously, you can’t be that dumb.
Dummy, read my previous post. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants more voting power to small states vs large states. (except in the Senate)
Therefore, there is nothing to change, idiot.
Yeah, there is, California doesn’t get 200 Electoral College, write your Congressman or sue the government then you can get you 200 votes, until then nothing will change and you call me an idiot? Lol!
That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.
And you called me names first, fucktard.
You can't be that fucking stupid.And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
You can't be that fucking stupid.Interesting. One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California. Wyoming has a population of about 580,000 and is worth 3 electoral college votes. That is 1 electoral college vote for every 193,000 people.
California has a population of 39.5 million, which is 68 times more than Wyoming. This means that California should have around 200 electoral college votes, if using the same ratio as Wyoming: 68 x 3 electoral votes = 204. Instead, California only has 55 electoral college votes.
This is completely unfair and the game is rigged to give Repubs a fighting chance in every Presidential election. If California was worth 200 electoral college votes like it should be, then Repubs would never have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential election ever again.
One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This is completely unfair
To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
