saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,622
- 10,640
- 2,030
In Colin's defense he DID pass history of cartoons in college...
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why can't liberals comprehend this is the United States of America??
- Thread starter Wyatt earp
- Start date
In Colin's defense he DID pass history of cartoons in college...
As with the US congress, the two houses represent us in total, nothing gets passed via voting, without the other. The house of representatives represents we the people and the two senators represent our entire state"s will.....We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe
Is Spain the same as Italy ?
Is Great Britain the same as Germany?
Hence the name United States of America
Not the United State of California
What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.
Our congressmen represent we the people that live in his congressional voting district, which have about 700000 citizens in each, the Senate represents the majority in the whole state.
ELECTORS in each state are allotted in the same manner, 1 elector representing each congressional voting district, plus each state, whether small or largely populated gets 2 electors representing each state"s two senators.....
In the electoral process the two electors representing state senators give the smaller states the same clout as the largest state....THAT is what gives smaller states a slight advantage, just like in Congress.
Where the States CHANGED the electors to winner takes ALL is how the state's messed up the electoral college. It was each elector in each congressional district, represented that district and his electoral vote went to the candidate representing the 700k people....
The two extra electors were suppose to go to who the State majority wanted.
IT'S NOT that way anymore because the States changed it....except my state of Maine and Nebraska have it the way our founders designed it.
We need the electoral college, but it is BROKEN to only serve a two party system now, and Only the State, and we the people LOST our representation.
NoNukes
Gold Member
It is now The Divided States of America.We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe
Is Spain the same as Italy ?
Is Great Britain the same as Germany?
Hence the name United States of America
Not the United State of California
What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.
Interesting thing about those "territories and various possessions" -- they contain United States citizens, who have no vote. Neither popular nor Electoral.
Just thought I'd bring that up.
As with the US congress, the two houses represent us in total, nothing gets passed via voting, without the other. The house of representatives represents we the people and the two senators represent our entire state"s will.....We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe
Is Spain the same as Italy ?
Is Great Britain the same as Germany?
Hence the name United States of America
Not the United State of California
What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.
Our congressmen represent we the people that live in his congressional voting district, which have about 700000 citizens in each, the Senate represents the majority in the whole state.
ELECTORS in each state are allotted in the same manner, 1 elector representing each congressional voting district, plus each state, whether small or largely populated gets 2 electors representing each state"s two senators.....
In the electoral process the two electors representing state senators give the smaller states the same clout as the largest state....THAT is what gives smaller states a slight advantage, just like in Congress.
Where the States CHANGED the electors to winner takes ALL is how the state's messed up the electoral college. It was each elector in each congressional district, represented that district and his electoral vote went to the candidate representing the 700k people....
The two extra electors were suppose to go to who the State majority wanted.
IT'S NOT that way anymore because the States changed it....except my state of Maine and Nebraska have it the way our founders designed it.
We need the electoral college, but it is BROKEN to only serve a two party system now, and Only the State, and we the people LOST our representation.
People are voting for who their State is going to give it's electors to, they haven't lost their representation. There are winners and losers in every election. In this election there's also the whiners who won't let that you lost go
Dr.Traveler
Mathematician
- Aug 31, 2009
- 3,948
- 652
- 190
Two things:
1. Arguing we need the Electoral College in order to protect small states is bunk. No one visits a state unless it is a swing state and the list of those gets smaller every year. If you don't like the idea of only a few cities or states deciding an election, you don't have a leg to stand on arguing for the electoral college. Ask any Democrat in Louisiana or Republican in New York or California. As it is, their vote is worthless. At least under a popular vote it would count.
2. One of the consequences of the Electoral College is the two party system. No matter how big a chunk a third party gets of the popular vote, the Electoral College essentially shuts them out of the race unless they can outright win states. And even then, unless they outright win the Electoral College, the tie breaker laid out in the Constitution shuts them out. As such we will always be a two party system as long as we have the Electoral college.
3. The Electoral College's other use is as a safeguard and last stop gap against a clearly unqualified or dangerous candidate. That is a joke. Most of the electors are picked outright by the campaigns, calling into question their purpose as a check on the system. That is especially true this time as any true check provided by the Electoral College would have immediately rejected Trump and Clinton.
I'm somewhat meh on the whole abolishing the EC debate, as I think it's just a symptom of a larger problem our system of government has. I'm very much in favor of a Constitutional Convention and revisiting the entire way we govern as a people, not just the EC.
1. Arguing we need the Electoral College in order to protect small states is bunk. No one visits a state unless it is a swing state and the list of those gets smaller every year. If you don't like the idea of only a few cities or states deciding an election, you don't have a leg to stand on arguing for the electoral college. Ask any Democrat in Louisiana or Republican in New York or California. As it is, their vote is worthless. At least under a popular vote it would count.
2. One of the consequences of the Electoral College is the two party system. No matter how big a chunk a third party gets of the popular vote, the Electoral College essentially shuts them out of the race unless they can outright win states. And even then, unless they outright win the Electoral College, the tie breaker laid out in the Constitution shuts them out. As such we will always be a two party system as long as we have the Electoral college.
3. The Electoral College's other use is as a safeguard and last stop gap against a clearly unqualified or dangerous candidate. That is a joke. Most of the electors are picked outright by the campaigns, calling into question their purpose as a check on the system. That is especially true this time as any true check provided by the Electoral College would have immediately rejected Trump and Clinton.
I'm somewhat meh on the whole abolishing the EC debate, as I think it's just a symptom of a larger problem our system of government has. I'm very much in favor of a Constitutional Convention and revisiting the entire way we govern as a people, not just the EC.
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.
Interesting thing about those "territories and various possessions" -- they contain United States citizens, who have no vote. Neither popular nor Electoral.
Just thought I'd bring that up.
They all know the rules and have the status they desire.
Just thought I'd bring that up
As with the US congress, the two houses represent us in total, nothing gets passed via voting, without the other. The house of representatives represents we the people and the two senators represent our entire state"s will.....We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe
Is Spain the same as Italy ?
Is Great Britain the same as Germany?
Hence the name United States of America
Not the United State of California
What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.
Our congressmen represent we the people that live in his congressional voting district, which have about 700000 citizens in each, the Senate represents the majority in the whole state.
ELECTORS in each state are allotted in the same manner, 1 elector representing each congressional voting district, plus each state, whether small or largely populated gets 2 electors representing each state"s two senators.....
In the electoral process the two electors representing state senators give the smaller states the same clout as the largest state....THAT is what gives smaller states a slight advantage, just like in Congress.
Where the States CHANGED the electors to winner takes ALL is how the state's messed up the electoral college. It was each elector in each congressional district, represented that district and his electoral vote went to the candidate representing the 700k people....
The two extra electors were suppose to go to who the State majority wanted.
IT'S NOT that way anymore because the States changed it....except my state of Maine and Nebraska have it the way our founders designed it.
We need the electoral college, but it is BROKEN to only serve a two party system now, and Only the State, and we the people LOST our representation.
People are voting for who their State is going to give it's electors to, they haven't lost their representation. There are winners and losers in every election. In this election there's also the whiners who won't let that you lost go
When your state is already locked-down red or blue ---- you've lost your representation. Use your head.
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,203
- 2,320
We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe
Is Spain the same as Italy ?
Is Great Britain the same as Germany?
Hence the name United States of America
Not the United State of California
What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.
The charm of states rights ended in 1861, or thereabouts.
Yes, the left views the country as one big glob, rather than 50 sovereign states. And yet, the 10th Amendment is still valid, and you may well soon see a re-assertion of it by the 33 states run by Republicans.
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.
Interesting thing about those "territories and various possessions" -- they contain United States citizens, who have no vote. Neither popular nor Electoral.
Just thought I'd bring that up.
They all know the rules and have the status they desire.
Just thought I'd bring that up
Feel free to link this "desire".
Just thought I'd close this up.
EverCurious
Gold Member
Stop spreading misinformation:
The Huntington–Hill method of apportionment assigns seats by finding a modified divisor D such that each constituency's priority quotient (population divided by D ), using the geometric mean of the lower and upper quota for the divisor, yields the correct number of seats that minimizes the percentage differences in the size of the congressional districts.[1] When envisioned as a proportional voting system, this is effectively a highest averages method in which the divisors are given by , n being the number of seats a state is currently allocated in the apportionment process (the lower quota) and n+1 is the number of seats the state would have if it is assigned to this state (the upper quota).
The United States House of Representatives uses this method of apportionment to assign the number of representative seats to each state.
Example:
The U.S. House of Representatives guarantees one seat for each state. So, each state starts off with a divisor D of 1.41 (the square root of the product of one, the number seats currently assigned, and two, the number of seats that would next be assigned). Each state's census population is divided by its D, to produce a priority value for each state. Since all of the D's are equal for this first seat, the state with the largest population would win (California).
Now, California's D would be changed to 2.45 (the square root of two times three), and we would repeat this process. Unless California has about twice the population of any other state, the next largest state would win this second seat. In this case Texas would win the next seat because its population (24 million) divided by its current D (still 1.41) is greater than California's similarly calculated priority value (37 million/2.45) for priority values of 17 million and 15 million, respectively).
This process is repeated until all empty house seats have been exhausted. If the number of U.S. House of Representatives seats were equal in size to the population of the United States, this method would guarantee that the appointments would equal the populations of each state.
The Huntington–Hill method of apportionment assigns seats by finding a modified divisor D such that each constituency's priority quotient (population divided by D ), using the geometric mean of the lower and upper quota for the divisor, yields the correct number of seats that minimizes the percentage differences in the size of the congressional districts.[1] When envisioned as a proportional voting system, this is effectively a highest averages method in which the divisors are given by , n being the number of seats a state is currently allocated in the apportionment process (the lower quota) and n+1 is the number of seats the state would have if it is assigned to this state (the upper quota).
The United States House of Representatives uses this method of apportionment to assign the number of representative seats to each state.
Example:
The U.S. House of Representatives guarantees one seat for each state. So, each state starts off with a divisor D of 1.41 (the square root of the product of one, the number seats currently assigned, and two, the number of seats that would next be assigned). Each state's census population is divided by its D, to produce a priority value for each state. Since all of the D's are equal for this first seat, the state with the largest population would win (California).
Now, California's D would be changed to 2.45 (the square root of two times three), and we would repeat this process. Unless California has about twice the population of any other state, the next largest state would win this second seat. In this case Texas would win the next seat because its population (24 million) divided by its current D (still 1.41) is greater than California's similarly calculated priority value (37 million/2.45) for priority values of 17 million and 15 million, respectively).
This process is repeated until all empty house seats have been exhausted. If the number of U.S. House of Representatives seats were equal in size to the population of the United States, this method would guarantee that the appointments would equal the populations of each state.
Two things:
1. Arguing we need the Electoral College in order to protect small states is bunk. No one visits a state unless it is a swing state and the list of those gets smaller every year. If you don't like the idea of only a few cities or states deciding an election, you don't have a leg to stand on arguing for the electoral college. Ask any Democrat in Louisiana or Republican in New York or California. As it is, their vote is worthless. At least under a popular vote it would count.
2. One of the consequences of the Electoral College is the two party system. No matter how big a chunk a third party gets of the popular vote, the Electoral College essentially shuts them out of the race unless they can outright win states. And even then, unless they outright win the Electoral College, the tie breaker laid out in the Constitution shuts them out. As such we will always be a two party system as long as we have the Electoral college.
3. The Electoral College's other use is as a safeguard and last stop gap against a clearly unqualified or dangerous candidate. That is a joke. Most of the electors are picked outright by the campaigns, calling into question their purpose as a check on the system. That is especially true this time as any true check provided by the Electoral College would have immediately rejected Trump and Clinton.
I'm somewhat meh on the whole abolishing the EC debate, as I think it's just a symptom of a larger problem our system of government has. I'm very much in favor of a Constitutional Convention and revisiting the entire way we govern as a people, not just the EC.
The thing that votes "don't count" in EV is ridiculous. It's no different in PV. You lose, you don't get your way. That doesn't mean your vote didn't count. We are a nation comprised of States, we are not a single State
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,203
- 2,320
Righties cry "state rights " , unless it's something they don't like . Then they wipe there ass with "state rights ."
See Sanctuary Cities for a prime example of above .
Again, as you people are so fond of reminding everyone, immigration policy is the venue of the federal government.
As with the US congress, the two houses represent us in total, nothing gets passed via voting, without the other. The house of representatives represents we the people and the two senators represent our entire state"s will.....We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe
Is Spain the same as Italy ?
Is Great Britain the same as Germany?
Hence the name United States of America
Not the United State of California
What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.
Our congressmen represent we the people that live in his congressional voting district, which have about 700000 citizens in each, the Senate represents the majority in the whole state.
ELECTORS in each state are allotted in the same manner, 1 elector representing each congressional voting district, plus each state, whether small or largely populated gets 2 electors representing each state"s two senators.....
In the electoral process the two electors representing state senators give the smaller states the same clout as the largest state....THAT is what gives smaller states a slight advantage, just like in Congress.
Where the States CHANGED the electors to winner takes ALL is how the state's messed up the electoral college. It was each elector in each congressional district, represented that district and his electoral vote went to the candidate representing the 700k people....
The two extra electors were suppose to go to who the State majority wanted.
IT'S NOT that way anymore because the States changed it....except my state of Maine and Nebraska have it the way our founders designed it.
We need the electoral college, but it is BROKEN to only serve a two party system now, and Only the State, and we the people LOST our representation.
People are voting for who their State is going to give it's electors to, they haven't lost their representation. There are winners and losers in every election. In this election there's also the whiners who won't let that you lost go
When your state is already locked-down red or blue ---- you've lost your representation. Use your head.
Bull. It's no different than being in the minority in PV. You voted, you lost
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.
Interesting thing about those "territories and various possessions" -- they contain United States citizens, who have no vote. Neither popular nor Electoral.
Just thought I'd bring that up.
They all know the rules and have the status they desire.
Just thought I'd bring that up
Feel free to link this "desire".
Just thought I'd close this up.
You think there are territories that want to not be territories? Who? Puerto Rico is the one that made the most noise and the last time they voted the independence and State supporters combined were 10% and the remain a territory voters were 90%. Who are you arguing doesn't like their status?
I suppose you could argue DC today. I'm for putting it back in Maryland if they want Senators and Representatives. But no one ever moved to DC not knowing the rules
TheDude
Gold Member
By now folks should realize the Rainbow Reich is made up of the emotional. They don't use their heads or history to make decisions. Quite frankly, you have to be a fucking moron not to recognize this. When Trump won they cried as if we'd been invaded by aliens, and they continue to whine today. Consider their base:
Students and their "safe zones". You're major pussies.
Feminists
LGBT
Pissed off blacks convinced they're victims.
Those who don't speak or read English.
Students and their "safe zones". You're major pussies.
Feminists
LGBT
Pissed off blacks convinced they're victims.
Those who don't speak or read English.
Dr.Traveler
Mathematician
- Aug 31, 2009
- 3,948
- 652
- 190
It's an aside, but it's interesting that you can mathematically prove that no apportionment method is perfect. Huntington Hill has it's own paradoxes that can arise in the method, as will any apportionment method that tries to divide up a fixed number of seats. The "fairest" way to divide House seats is to not allow the House to stay at a fixed number and use an apportionment method from there.Stop spreading misinformation:
The Huntington–Hill method of apportionment assigns seats by finding a modified divisor D such that each constituency's priority quotient (population divided by D ), using the geometric mean of the lower and upper quota for the divisor, yields the correct number of seats that minimizes the percentage differences in the size of the congressional districts.[1] When envisioned as a proportional voting system, this is effectively a highest averages method in which the divisors are given by , n being the number of seats a state is currently allocated in the apportionment process (the lower quota) and n+1 is the number of seats the state would have if it is assigned to this state (the upper quota).
The United States House of Representatives uses this method of apportionment to assign the number of representative seats to each state.
Example:
The U.S. House of Representatives guarantees one seat for each state. So, each state starts off with a divisor D of 1.41 (the square root of the product of one, the number seats currently assigned, and two, the number of seats that would next be assigned). Each state's census population is divided by its D, to produce a priority value for each state. Since all of the D's are equal for this first seat, the state with the largest population would win (California).
Now, California's D would be changed to 2.45 (the square root of two times three), and we would repeat this process. Unless California has about twice the population of any other state, the next largest state would win this second seat. In this case Texas would win the next seat because its population (24 million) divided by its current D (still 1.41) is greater than California's similarly calculated priority value (37 million/2.45) for priority values of 17 million and 15 million, respectively).
This process is repeated until all empty house seats have been exhausted. If the number of U.S. House of Representatives seats were equal in size to the population of the United States, this method would guarantee that the appointments would equal the populations of each state.
Just a fun math fact.
That's not how the founders set up the electors....they set them up to represent each and every congressional district, so we in that district had representation and are not squashed out by the majority vote completely.As with the US congress, the two houses represent us in total, nothing gets passed via voting, without the other. The house of representatives represents we the people and the two senators represent our entire state"s will.....We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe
Is Spain the same as Italy ?
Is Great Britain the same as Germany?
Hence the name United States of America
Not the United State of California
What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.
Our congressmen represent we the people that live in his congressional voting district, which have about 700000 citizens in each, the Senate represents the majority in the whole state.
ELECTORS in each state are allotted in the same manner, 1 elector representing each congressional voting district, plus each state, whether small or largely populated gets 2 electors representing each state"s two senators.....
In the electoral process the two electors representing state senators give the smaller states the same clout as the largest state....THAT is what gives smaller states a slight advantage, just like in Congress.
Where the States CHANGED the electors to winner takes ALL is how the state's messed up the electoral college. It was each elector in each congressional district, represented that district and his electoral vote went to the candidate representing the 700k people....
The two extra electors were suppose to go to who the State majority wanted.
IT'S NOT that way anymore because the States changed it....except my state of Maine and Nebraska have it the way our founders designed it.
We need the electoral college, but it is BROKEN to only serve a two party system now, and Only the State, and we the people LOST our representation.
People are voting for who their State is going to give it's electors to, they haven't lost their representation. There are winners and losers in every election. In this election there's also the whiners who won't let that you lost go
If Texas had 20 congressional districts, they have 20 congressmen voting on bills in the HOUSE hat represent each individual voting district....if 11 of those congressmen vote YEA on the Bill, and 9 of those Texas congressmen vote NAY.....
THE 9 voting NAY are not changed to what the other 11 Texas congress critters voted, to YEA....their congressional districts are still represented in the house with their 9 votes of Nay.....
Electors should be the same way, then the 2 additional electors representing our overall state, should cast their vote for the majority winner of the State.
By now folks should realize the Rainbow Reich is made up of the emotional. They don't use their heads or even history for making decisions. Quite frankly, you have to be a fucking moron not to recognize it. When Trump won they cried as if we'd been invaded by aliens, and they continue to whine today. Consider their base:
Students and their "safe zones". You're major pussies.
Feminists
LGBT
Pissed off blacks convinced they're victims.
Those who don't speak or read English.
And then there's:
-- the testosterone-poisoned
Similar threads
- Replies
- 225
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 134
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 634
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 3K
- Views
- 43K
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 77
- Replies
- 609
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 88
- Views
- 388
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8385
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-