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.
Look we all know you are to STUPID to breed but the Constitution is clear on the issue of who gets representatThat 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.
There is NO debate retard. The Constitution states that EVERY State will have 2 Senators and at LEAST one Representative and left to Congress to determine the Number of people per district for the Representative. Wyoming has only one Representative per the rules of the Constitution and Congress. California has as many as it does due to the same rules enshrined in the Constitution and the power of the Congress.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.
Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.
Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.
You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.
Look we all know you are to STUPID to breed but the Constitution is clear on the issue of who gets representatThat 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.
There is NO debate retard. The Constitution states that EVERY State will have 2 Senators and at LEAST one Representative and left to Congress to determine the Number of people per district for the Representative. Wyoming has only one Representative per the rules of the Constitution and Congress. California has as many as it does due to the same rules enshrined in the Constitution and the power of the Congress.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.
Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.
Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.
You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.
Wrong. California is currently under-represented. Even the Republican I was debating this issue with (ToddsterPatriot) agreed that California is under-represented by at least 15 electoral college votes. We disagreed on this issue, but he made a solid counter-argument. He's smarter than your hopeless, dishonest ass. (at least on this issue)
He did not agree it was under represented he said USING YOUR claim it need a certain number of districts. The Constitution is CLEAR as a bell every State gets 2 Senators and one representative at least more depending on population. California has the number of representatives as determined by Federal Law pursuant to the Constitution as does Wyoming. You don't like it you have 2 choices, convince Congress to eliminate the 435 rule or create an amendment that eliminates the electoral college.Look we all know you are to STUPID to breed but the Constitution is clear on the issue of who gets representatThat 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.
There is NO debate retard. The Constitution states that EVERY State will have 2 Senators and at LEAST one Representative and left to Congress to determine the Number of people per district for the Representative. Wyoming has only one Representative per the rules of the Constitution and Congress. California has as many as it does due to the same rules enshrined in the Constitution and the power of the Congress.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.
Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.
Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.
You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.
Wrong. California is currently under-represented. Even the Republican I was debating this issue with (ToddsterPatriot) agreed that California is under-represented by at least 15 electoral college votes. We disagreed on this issue, but he made a solid counter-argument. He's smarter than your hopeless, dishonest ass. (at least on this issue)
The Constitution may have been a silk purse when it was written - but it's sort of like a sow's ear now.
Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.The Constitution may have been a silk purse when it was written - but it's sort of like a sow's ear now.
Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.
Trump already won. He needs to keep his eyes on the prize, and not let those who don't understand he beat the system at it's own game bother him.
You don't need to win the popular vote. You never did. You never will.
No candidate has ever intentionally lost the popular vote. It bothers Trump and all of his worthless voters.
And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!
She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.
And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?
No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.
What's fair is fair.
You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do
I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.
Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?
And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?
No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.
What's fair is fair.
You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do
I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.
Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?
They don't. The House is apportioned by population and they can't get any new laws through without passing the House. Well, unless the SCOTUS wants to legislate them.
And majority rule is just two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner
That simply isn't true. Wyoming has much greater representation than California, as has been previously explained.
It's 100% true, moron. Wyoming has the number of members in the House specified by the Constitution. Are you claiming it should have none?No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.
What's fair is fair.
You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do
I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.
Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?
They don't. The House is apportioned by population and they can't get any new laws through without passing the House. Well, unless the SCOTUS wants to legislate them.
And majority rule is just two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner
That simply isn't true. Wyoming has much greater representation than California, as has been previously explained.
It's 100% true, moron. Wyoming has the number of members in the House specified by the Constitution. Are you claiming it should have none?You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do
I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.
Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?
They don't. The House is apportioned by population and they can't get any new laws through without passing the House. Well, unless the SCOTUS wants to legislate them.
And majority rule is just two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner
That simply isn't true. Wyoming has much greater representation than California, as has been previously explained.
You're such an idiot Repug carnival barker, you have no idea what I'm saying. Just shut-up and let some grown-ups debate.
It's 100% true, moron. Wyoming has the number of members in the House specified by the Constitution. Are you claiming it should have none?I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.
Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?
They don't. The House is apportioned by population and they can't get any new laws through without passing the House. Well, unless the SCOTUS wants to legislate them.
And majority rule is just two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner
That simply isn't true. Wyoming has much greater representation than California, as has been previously explained.
You're such an idiot Repug carnival barker, you have no idea what I'm saying. Just shut-up and let some grown-ups debate.
You think you're a "grown up?"
He did not agree it was under represented he said USING YOUR claim it need a certain number of districts. The Constitution is CLEAR as a bell every State gets 2 Senators and one representative at least more depending on population. California has the number of representatives as determined by Federal Law pursuant to the Constitution as does Wyoming. You don't like it you have 2 choices, convince Congress to eliminate the 435 rule or create an amendment that eliminates the electoral college.Look we all know you are to STUPID to breed but the Constitution is clear on the issue of who gets representatAnd 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.
There is NO debate retard. The Constitution states that EVERY State will have 2 Senators and at LEAST one Representative and left to Congress to determine the Number of people per district for the Representative. Wyoming has only one Representative per the rules of the Constitution and Congress. California has as many as it does due to the same rules enshrined in the Constitution and the power of the Congress.That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.
And you called me names first, fucktard.
Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.
Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.
You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.
Wrong. California is currently under-represented. Even the Republican I was debating this issue with (ToddsterPatriot) agreed that California is under-represented by at least 15 electoral college votes. We disagreed on this issue, but he made a solid counter-argument. He's smarter than your hopeless, dishonest ass. (at least on this issue)
They knew exactly what they were doing as Rhode Island and Delaware prove dumb ass.He did not agree it was under represented he said USING YOUR claim it need a certain number of districts. The Constitution is CLEAR as a bell every State gets 2 Senators and one representative at least more depending on population. California has the number of representatives as determined by Federal Law pursuant to the Constitution as does Wyoming. You don't like it you have 2 choices, convince Congress to eliminate the 435 rule or create an amendment that eliminates the electoral college.Look we all know you are to STUPID to breed but the Constitution is clear on the issue of who gets representatAnother 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.
There is NO debate retard. The Constitution states that EVERY State will have 2 Senators and at LEAST one Representative and left to Congress to determine the Number of people per district for the Representative. Wyoming has only one Representative per the rules of the Constitution and Congress. California has as many as it does due to the same rules enshrined in the Constitution and the power of the Congress.Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.
Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.
You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.
Wrong. California is currently under-represented. Even the Republican I was debating this issue with (ToddsterPatriot) agreed that California is under-represented by at least 15 electoral college votes. We disagreed on this issue, but he made a solid counter-argument. He's smarter than your hopeless, dishonest ass. (at least on this issue)
Nope. California is under-represented by his measure (70 electoral college votes) or my measure (204 electoral college votes).
If the Founding Fathers knew that we were going to have several states that were sparsely populated like Wyoming, they would never have given them two additional electoral college votes for each Senate seat. It's simply not fair that each voter in Wyoming has 3.6 times more voting power than each voter in California.
Of course, you Repugs like it, because that's the only chance in hell that you all have of winning a Presidential election anymore.
He did not agree it was under represented he said USING YOUR claim it need a certain number of districts. The Constitution is CLEAR as a bell every State gets 2 Senators and one representative at least more depending on population. California has the number of representatives as determined by Federal Law pursuant to the Constitution as does Wyoming. You don't like it you have 2 choices, convince Congress to eliminate the 435 rule or create an amendment that eliminates the electoral college.Look we all know you are to STUPID to breed but the Constitution is clear on the issue of who gets representatAnother 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.
There is NO debate retard. The Constitution states that EVERY State will have 2 Senators and at LEAST one Representative and left to Congress to determine the Number of people per district for the Representative. Wyoming has only one Representative per the rules of the Constitution and Congress. California has as many as it does due to the same rules enshrined in the Constitution and the power of the Congress.Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.
Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.
You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.
Wrong. California is currently under-represented. Even the Republican I was debating this issue with (ToddsterPatriot) agreed that California is under-represented by at least 15 electoral college votes. We disagreed on this issue, but he made a solid counter-argument. He's smarter than your hopeless, dishonest ass. (at least on this issue)
Nope. California is under-represented by his measure (70 electoral college votes) or my measure (204 electoral college votes).
If the Founding Fathers knew that we were going to have several states that were sparsely populated like Wyoming, they would never have given them two additional electoral college votes for each Senate seat. It's simply not fair that each voter in Wyoming has 3.6 times more voting power than each voter in California.
Of course, you Repugs like it, because that's the only chance in hell that you all have of winning a Presidential election anymore.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.
Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.
You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.
And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.
Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.
Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.
She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.
And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?
No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.
What's fair is fair.
