Why can't liberals comprehend this is the United States of America??

[NYcarbineer]

facts are not "rational" ? since when?

You are losing it.

Make the rational argument that every state should have 2 Senators.

Losing it…?

What?



Damn you don't know the Senate was set up for state rights

The house was set up for people's rights

Damn I am. Just a low life industrial maintenance guy and I know that.

thank the teachers union for liberal ignorance. they no longer teach American history.

The above from the homeschooled imbecile who just claimed that Trump is leading in the popular vote.

homeschooled? nope. I am a product of public schools, and liberal colleges, including the left wing bastion of Harvard. The difference between me and you is that I am smart enough to see the liberal bullshit for what it is.

Then post a reliable source showing Trump leading in the popular vote.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So people don't now? You can't do anything with dictators and the like you can never move forward your screwed or get killed..

That's why I love America if you bust your ass you can win like Trump

Or sit on your ass and lose.

This is the greatest country in the world because we have the EC..

Er.... what? It's the greatest country because, hey, you might not win the popular vote, but you can still sit your ass in the White House, whereas in other countries, damn, you actually have to win the popular vote? That sucks hey?

The right president comes along at the right time


Its not my quote but so true.

How are you using the term "right"? I mean, Hitler was considered to be on the right. He was "the right president"

Hitler was a socialist who ran the socialist party of Germany, he's pure left. What is a real difference between Hitler and Stalin?

You're an idiot. Hitler is the prime example of the political right.

You just made a huge mistake.

You want to think about this one?

 

[Redfish]

You're an idiot. Hitler is the prime example of the political right.

Fascism is totalitarianism and totalitarianism is exclusively left-wing you progressive nitwit. Progressives are so limited in their intellect that they believe Hitler was "right-wing" simply because he turned on the U.S.S.R. towards the end of the war (as if he did so because he was trying to stop the spread of communism or something ).

View attachment 100312

That chart is made up baloney.

actually its quite accurate. too far either way leads to disaster. the USA was moving too far left and needed a correction. we got it on election day.

 

[P@triot]

The above from the homeschooled imbecile who just claimed that Trump is leading in the popular vote.

homeschooled? nope. I am a product of public schools, and liberal colleges, including the left wing bastion of Harvard. The difference between me and you is that I am smart enough to see the liberal bullshit for what it is.

Boom! Knockout blow. Game over. NYCrabby couldn't get into a community college. Arguing with someone who went to Harvard is really not in his best interest.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You are losing it.

Make the rational argument that every state should have 2 Senators.

Losing it…?

What?



Damn you don't know the Senate was set up for state rights

The house was set up for people's rights

Damn I am. Just a low life industrial maintenance guy and I know that.

thank the teachers union for liberal ignorance. they no longer teach American history.

The above from the homeschooled imbecile who just claimed that Trump is leading in the popular vote.

homeschooled? nope. I am a product of public schools, and liberal colleges, including the left wing bastion of Harvard. The difference between me and you is that I am smart enough to see the liberal bullshit for what it is.

Then post a reliable source showing Trump leading in the popular vote.

Blah blah blah.
Are you stuck on stupid ,this morning?,

You are a paid poster but thanks for bumping my thread

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're an idiot. Hitler is the prime example of the political right.

Fascism is totalitarianism and totalitarianism is exclusively left-wing you progressive nitwit. Progressives are so limited in their intellect that they believe Hitler was "right-wing" simply because he turned on the U.S.S.R. towards the end of the war (as if he did so because he was trying to stop the spread of communism or something ).

View attachment 100312

 

[Redfish]

You are losing it.

Make the rational argument that every state should have 2 Senators.

Losing it…?

What?



Damn you don't know the Senate was set up for state rights

The house was set up for people's rights

Damn I am. Just a low life industrial maintenance guy and I know that.

thank the teachers union for liberal ignorance. they no longer teach American history.

The above from the homeschooled imbecile who just claimed that Trump is leading in the popular vote.

homeschooled? nope. I am a product of public schools, and liberal colleges, including the left wing bastion of Harvard. The difference between me and you is that I am smart enough to see the liberal bullshit for what it is.

Then post a reliable source showing Trump leading in the popular vote.

tell me why it matters. If we used the PV, the candidates would spend all of their time in Ca, NY, Fl, and Tx. No other states would matter. We will never know who won the PV, and it doesn't matter, Trump is our next president.

If you don't like that result, get the constitution changed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But also a lot of people lived right on the poverty line. A bad summer and people died. Genocide was also rife.

So people don't now? You can't do anything with dictators and the like you can never move forward your screwed or get killed..

That's why I love America if you bust your ass you can win like Trump

Or sit on your ass and lose.

This is the greatest country in the world because we have the EC..

Er.... what? It's the greatest country because, hey, you might not win the popular vote, but you can still sit your ass in the White House, whereas in other countries, damn, you actually have to win the popular vote? That sucks hey?

The right president comes along at the right time


Its not my quote but so true.

How are you using the term "right"? I mean, Hitler was considered to be on the right. He was "the right president"

This Is not Germany in 1938..we have the Senate and house and the EC



Can you see the difference?

No. Germany had a political system which was democratic. But still things went wrong. Things are going wrong in the US now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The above from the homeschooled imbecile who just claimed that Trump is leading in the popular vote.

homeschooled? nope. I am a product of public schools, and liberal colleges, including the left wing bastion of Harvard. The difference between me and you is that I am smart enough to see the liberal bullshit for what it is.

Boom! Knockout blow. Game over. NYCrabby couldn't get into a community college. Arguing with someone who went to Harvard is really not in his best interest.

So you agree with Redfish's claim that Trump is ahead in the popular vote. You're both idiots.

 

[Care4all]

I read it when searching HISTORY of presidential race electors, and Hamilton and Madison among a few others who created the system and why they created it, verses letting actual house and Senate members voting.

Still no links? Of course, that's what happens when you make your shit up. The founding fathers left it up to the States how to allocate their electors. You're still zero for everything. Link, wench. Where did the FFs say States were supposed to allocate proportionately. Your claim, back it up

here ya go with just one link....it's a long read, much more at the link...I doubt you'll read it all or even try to understand it...

The Electoral College - Origin and History

The Electoral College

Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?


Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


The First Design
In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

• Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  
• The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.

• The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  
• The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  
• In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.

In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.


The Second Design
The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

You're just assuming I'm as intellectually lazy as you are. I read a bunch of those on the history of the electoral college and all of them said the founders wanted it to be up to the States how to allocate their electors. Your claim they wanted to dictate to the States how to do it then they forgot to say that was unsupported. That's why I asked you for a link. I always do research before asking for a link. Ironic since you make claims without researching them.

Here's how you source a link. You provide the quote for the part you're claiming that the founding fathers wanted States to allocate their electors proportionally and somehow forgot to put that in the rules. Then you provide the link to support that. You're welcome.

I don't read here's a link, read it all and figure out what I am arguing for yourself on principle. So I will pass. Provide the quote and back it up with the link, lazy ass.

Edit: I pulled up the link and already read that one before you posted it. It doesn't support your claim. You insult me and post a long link with no quote that doesn't support your claim. That article says nothing about the founders wanting proportional allocation. I know that because I already read it. You are so full of shit it's hilarious ...

They wanted electors to cast their vote for the congressional district they represented. And no, the founders said it left it up to the states on who they picked for their electors for the DISTRICT....

You seem to think electors were picked after the people chose a president with a statewide popular vote in a winner take all....

THIS WAS NOT HOW it was done for our first 4 Presidencies.....slates of electors by party was not our founders intent, but the opposite of their intent

then get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified by 38 states. Without that, nothing is going to change. Deal with that reality.

please kindly follow the thread dearest...

It doesn't take a constitutional Amendment for States to allocate their electors' votes individually by district silly, it simply takes the State to do it, like Maine and Nebraska did it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Losing it…?

What?



Damn you don't know the Senate was set up for state rights

The house was set up for people's rights

Damn I am. Just a low life industrial maintenance guy and I know that.

thank the teachers union for liberal ignorance. they no longer teach American history.

The above from the homeschooled imbecile who just claimed that Trump is leading in the popular vote.

homeschooled? nope. I am a product of public schools, and liberal colleges, including the left wing bastion of Harvard. The difference between me and you is that I am smart enough to see the liberal bullshit for what it is.

Then post a reliable source showing Trump leading in the popular vote.

tell me why it matters. If we used the PV, the candidates would spend all of their time in Ca, NY, Fl, and Tx. No other states would matter. We will never know who won the PV, and it doesn't matter, Trump is our next president.

If you don't like that result, get the constitution changed.

It matters because you were either lying, or you're stupid beyond belief.

 

[Redfish]

Losing it…?

What?



Damn you don't know the Senate was set up for state rights

The house was set up for people's rights

Damn I am. Just a low life industrial maintenance guy and I know that.

thank the teachers union for liberal ignorance. they no longer teach American history.

The above from the homeschooled imbecile who just claimed that Trump is leading in the popular vote.

homeschooled? nope. I am a product of public schools, and liberal colleges, including the left wing bastion of Harvard. The difference between me and you is that I am smart enough to see the liberal bullshit for what it is.

Then post a reliable source showing Trump leading in the popular vote.

Blah blah blah.
Are you stuck on stupid ,this morning?,

You are a paid poster but thanks for bumping my thread

its what she does best. post bullshit dem/lib talking points. she has zero credibility. candidate for the ignore list.

 

[Redfish]

Still no links? Of course, that's what happens when you make your shit up. The founding fathers left it up to the States how to allocate their electors. You're still zero for everything. Link, wench. Where did the FFs say States were supposed to allocate proportionately. Your claim, back it up

here ya go with just one link....it's a long read, much more at the link...I doubt you'll read it all or even try to understand it...

The Electoral College - Origin and History

The Electoral College

Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?


Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


The First Design
In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

• Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  
• The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.

• The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  
• The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  
• In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.

In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.


The Second Design
The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

You're just assuming I'm as intellectually lazy as you are. I read a bunch of those on the history of the electoral college and all of them said the founders wanted it to be up to the States how to allocate their electors. Your claim they wanted to dictate to the States how to do it then they forgot to say that was unsupported. That's why I asked you for a link. I always do research before asking for a link. Ironic since you make claims without researching them.

Here's how you source a link. You provide the quote for the part you're claiming that the founding fathers wanted States to allocate their electors proportionally and somehow forgot to put that in the rules. Then you provide the link to support that. You're welcome.

I don't read here's a link, read it all and figure out what I am arguing for yourself on principle. So I will pass. Provide the quote and back it up with the link, lazy ass.

Edit: I pulled up the link and already read that one before you posted it. It doesn't support your claim. You insult me and post a long link with no quote that doesn't support your claim. That article says nothing about the founders wanting proportional allocation. I know that because I already read it. You are so full of shit it's hilarious ...

They wanted electors to cast their vote for the congressional district they represented. And no, the founders said it left it up to the states on who they picked for their electors for the DISTRICT....

You seem to think electors were picked after the people chose a president with a statewide popular vote in a winner take all....

THIS WAS NOT HOW it was done for our first 4 Presidencies.....slates of electors by party was not our founders intent, but the opposite of their intent

then get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified by 38 states. Without that, nothing is going to change. Deal with that reality.

please kindly follow the thread dearest...

It doesn't take a constitutional Amendment for States to allocate their electors' votes individually by district silly, it simply takes the State to do it, like Maine and Nebraska did it.

true, but your earlier push was to eliminate the EC. So, have you started a campaign in every state to allocate EC votes? How about California? Do you really want to go there? Look at the red vs blue on the voting map in Ca. Do it by county and trump wins, do it by congressional district and trump wins.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're an idiot. Hitler is the prime example of the political right.

Fascism is totalitarianism and totalitarianism is exclusively left-wing you progressive nitwit. Progressives are so limited in their intellect that they believe Hitler was "right-wing" simply because he turned on the U.S.S.R. towards the end of the war (as if he did so because he was trying to stop the spread of communism or something ).

View attachment 100312

You didn't think I didn't see that talking point graph before of the liberals and democrats under ground?



I am starting to smoke you.

I am really figuring you out

 

[P@triot]

So you agree with Redfish's claim that Trump is ahead in the popular vote. You're both idiots.

Did I say that? Only desperate people have to make stuff up.

 

[kaz]

Still no links? Of course, that's what happens when you make your shit up. The founding fathers left it up to the States how to allocate their electors. You're still zero for everything. Link, wench. Where did the FFs say States were supposed to allocate proportionately. Your claim, back it up

here ya go with just one link....it's a long read, much more at the link...I doubt you'll read it all or even try to understand it...

The Electoral College - Origin and History

The Electoral College

Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?


Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


The First Design
In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

• Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  
• The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.

• The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  
• The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  
• In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.

In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.


The Second Design
The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

You're just assuming I'm as intellectually lazy as you are. I read a bunch of those on the history of the electoral college and all of them said the founders wanted it to be up to the States how to allocate their electors. Your claim they wanted to dictate to the States how to do it then they forgot to say that was unsupported. That's why I asked you for a link. I always do research before asking for a link. Ironic since you make claims without researching them.

Here's how you source a link. You provide the quote for the part you're claiming that the founding fathers wanted States to allocate their electors proportionally and somehow forgot to put that in the rules. Then you provide the link to support that. You're welcome.

I don't read here's a link, read it all and figure out what I am arguing for yourself on principle. So I will pass. Provide the quote and back it up with the link, lazy ass.

Edit: I pulled up the link and already read that one before you posted it. It doesn't support your claim. You insult me and post a long link with no quote that doesn't support your claim. That article says nothing about the founders wanting proportional allocation. I know that because I already read it. You are so full of shit it's hilarious ...

They wanted electors to cast their vote for the congressional district they represented. And no, the founders said it left it up to the states on who they picked for their electors for the DISTRICT....

You seem to think electors were picked after the people chose a president with a statewide popular vote in a winner take all....

THIS WAS NOT HOW it was done for our first 4 Presidencies.....slates of electors by party was not our founders intent, but the opposite of their intent

then get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified by 38 states. Without that, nothing is going to change. Deal with that reality.

please kindly follow the thread dearest...

It doesn't take a constitutional Amendment for States to allocate their electors' votes individually by district silly, it simply takes the State to do it, like Maine and Nebraska did it.

Exactly, stick to that argument. It's the one thing you are saying that's true. If you want States to do that, argue for it. Stop making up shit you can't back up and particularly stop lying about what I said. This statement is true. I don't agree with you on what States should do, but you have every right to advocate it

 

[P@triot]

You're an idiot. Hitler is the prime example of the political right.

Fascism is totalitarianism and totalitarianism is exclusively left-wing you progressive nitwit. Progressives are so limited in their intellect that they believe Hitler was "right-wing" simply because he turned on the U.S.S.R. towards the end of the war (as if he did so because he was trying to stop the spread of communism or something ).

View attachment 100312

The further right you go, government gets smaller and weaker. How could the end of that result in a powerful, totalitarian government with unlimited power?!?

 

[Redfish]

thank the teachers union for liberal ignorance. they no longer teach American history.

The above from the homeschooled imbecile who just claimed that Trump is leading in the popular vote.

homeschooled? nope. I am a product of public schools, and liberal colleges, including the left wing bastion of Harvard. The difference between me and you is that I am smart enough to see the liberal bullshit for what it is.

Then post a reliable source showing Trump leading in the popular vote.

tell me why it matters. If we used the PV, the candidates would spend all of their time in Ca, NY, Fl, and Tx. No other states would matter. We will never know who won the PV, and it doesn't matter, Trump is our next president.

If you don't like that result, get the constitution changed.

It matters because you were either lying, or you're stupid beyond belief.

 

[P@triot]

Seriously....how dumb does one have to be to place "fascism" directly next to "libertarianism" on a chart?!? They are polar opposites in every way.

 

[Wyatt earp]

thank the teachers union for liberal ignorance. they no longer teach American history.

The above from the homeschooled imbecile who just claimed that Trump is leading in the popular vote.

homeschooled? nope. I am a product of public schools, and liberal colleges, including the left wing bastion of Harvard. The difference between me and you is that I am smart enough to see the liberal bullshit for what it is.

Then post a reliable source showing Trump leading in the popular vote.

Blah blah blah.
Are you stuck on stupid ,this morning?,

You are a paid poster but thanks for bumping my thread

its what she does best. post bullshit dem/lib talking points. she has zero credibility. candidate for the ignore list.

Yup a drone.

No liberal poster is like this accept they are paid I had more fun arguing with truth matters ..NY is getting mad at me because she can't out debate me