independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 18th Nov 2017 2:18am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Let the People pick the President ! Get rid of the Electoral College
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 11/11/17 7:03am

Graycap23

avatar

The EC is nonsense created to control the outcome....and that is exactly what it did.

Correct a wise man and u create a leader. Correct a FOOL and u create an enemy.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 11/11/17 7:44am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Graycap23 said:

The EC is nonsense created to control the outcome....and that is exactly what it did.

no, it is meant to make sure that smaller states do not get ignored.... see as it is (and it is not perfect but if a given state wants to put its electors where its mouth is they would and could award them by a straight up proportion system) a state we 3 votes is given some attention as well as one with 55.

If California really, truly wanted all votes to be equal then they would have awarded Trump 17 electors! But they DO NOT. So all this talk is a LIE!

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 11/11/17 8:01am

Graycap23

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Graycap23 said:

The EC is nonsense created to control the outcome....and that is exactly what it did.

no, it is meant to make sure that smaller states do not get ignored.... see as it is (and it is not perfect but if a given state wants to put its electors where its mouth is they would and could award them by a straight up proportion system) a state we 3 votes is given some attention as well as one with 55.

If California really, truly wanted all votes to be equal then they would have awarded Trump 17 electors! But they DO NOT. So all this talk is a LIE!

It is either 1 man 1 vote............or it isn't.

It isn't. It's weighed in favor of the small states.

Correct a wise man and u create a leader. Correct a FOOL and u create an enemy.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 11/11/17 8:09am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Graycap23 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

no, it is meant to make sure that smaller states do not get ignored.... see as it is (and it is not perfect but if a given state wants to put its electors where its mouth is they would and could award them by a straight up proportion system) a state we 3 votes is given some attention as well as one with 55.

If California really, truly wanted all votes to be equal then they would have awarded Trump 17 electors! But they DO NOT. So all this talk is a LIE!

It is either 1 man 1 vote............or it isn't.

It isn't. It's weighed in favor of the small states.

yeah and that is a form of a check and balance the smaller states get a slight advantage...but like I said unless you agree that California should have awarded 17 of its electors to Trump (and 1 to Johnston) then you really do not believe in one vote per person.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 11/11/17 8:21am

Graycap23

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Graycap23 said:

It is either 1 man 1 vote............or it isn't.

It isn't. It's weighed in favor of the small states.

yeah and that is a form of a check and balance the smaller states get a slight advantage...but like I said unless you agree that California should have awarded 17 of its electors to Trump (and 1 to Johnston) then you really do not believe in one vote per person.

Lol........Clueless.

U admit that is is weighed but that is ok. eek

[Edited 11/11/17 8:24am]

Correct a wise man and u create a leader. Correct a FOOL and u create an enemy.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 11/11/17 8:24am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Graycap23 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

yeah and that is a form of a check and balance the smaller states get a slight advantage...but like I said unless you agree that California should have awarded 17 of its electors to Trump (and 1 to Johnston) then you really do not believe in one vote per person.

Lol........Clueless

ha! why because I point out how the left is full of it? if the whiners in cali really want all votes to be counted the same then they will lobby to move to a proportional allocation... you just mad that you person LOST. admit it...



And NO I do not assume you liked Hillary

[Edited 11/11/17 8:27am]

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 11/11/17 8:25am

Graycap23

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Graycap23 said:

Lol........Clueless

ha! why because I point out how the left is full of it? if the whiners in cali really want all votes to be counted the same then they will lobby to move to a proportional allocation... you just mad that you person LOST. admit it...

The country lost.......anyone who is paying attention can see that.

A system where someone has 3 million more votes and loses is a joke.

[Edited 11/11/17 8:28am]

Correct a wise man and u create a leader. Correct a FOOL and u create an enemy.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 11/11/17 8:35am

Dasein

^

Dude has been bringing the heavy lately.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 11/11/17 8:42am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Graycap23 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

ha! why because I point out how the left is full of it? if the whiners in cali really want all votes to be counted the same then they will lobby to move to a proportional allocation... you just mad that you person LOST. admit it...

The country lost.......anyone who is paying attention can see that.

A system where someone has 3 million more votes and loses is a joke.

[Edited 11/11/17 8:28am]

you want to change the rules after the game is over... plain and simple. It is like the Dodgers claiming to be co-champs because they got the same number of runs as the Astros.

the fact each state decides how it will select its electors. the fact that they all hold elections is not a basis to deem the system unfair.

and trump got 32% of the votes in CA but NOT ONE Elector? that is just as broken....but you can not admit it.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 11/11/17 8:47am

Graycap23

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Graycap23 said:

The country lost.......anyone who is paying attention can see that.

A system where someone has 3 million more votes and loses is a joke.

[Edited 11/11/17 8:28am]

you want to change the rules after the game is over... plain and simple. It is like the Dodgers claiming to be co-champs because they got the same number of runs as the Astros.

the fact each state decides how it will select its electors. the fact that they all hold elections is not a basis to deem the system unfair.

and trump got 32% of the votes in CA but NOT ONE Elector? that is just as broken....but you can not admit it.

Nonsense.......I talked about the EC here over a decade ago.

Correct a wise man and u create a leader. Correct a FOOL and u create an enemy.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 11/11/17 9:02am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Graycap23 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

you want to change the rules after the game is over... plain and simple. It is like the Dodgers claiming to be co-champs because they got the same number of runs as the Astros.

the fact each state decides how it will select its electors. the fact that they all hold elections is not a basis to deem the system unfair.

and trump got 32% of the votes in CA but NOT ONE Elector? that is just as broken....but you can not admit it.

Nonsense.......I talked about the EC here over a decade ago.

yeah when BUSH won! LOL


But as I said if whatever state you are in really wanted to fix it your state would call for appointing theirs by a direct % (with the winner getting any remainders)

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 11/11/17 9:23am

poppys

Dasein said:

^

Dude has been bringing the heavy lately.

nod Graycap don't waste alotta words.

Kick the old-school joints. For the true funk soldiers.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 11/11/17 9:32am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Graycap23 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

no, it is meant to make sure that smaller states do not get ignored.... see as it is (and it is not perfect but if a given state wants to put its electors where its mouth is they would and could award them by a straight up proportion system) a state we 3 votes is given some attention as well as one with 55.

If California really, truly wanted all votes to be equal then they would have awarded Trump 17 electors! But they DO NOT. So all this talk is a LIE!

It is either 1 man 1 vote............or it isn't.

It isn't. It's weighed in favor of the small states.

Exactly. That is my point as well

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 11/11/17 9:36am

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Graycap23 said:

Nonsense.......I talked about the EC here over a decade ago.

yeah when BUSH won! LOL


But as I said if whatever state you are in really wanted to fix it your state would call for appointing theirs by a direct % (with the winner getting any remainders)

Please explain, as succintly as possible, why you think the Electoral College system is still the best method to elect a President in the 21st Century.

And why you are against, "one person, one vote, majority of votes is the winner" -used in every other election in America- is not a good system to elect the President of all Americans.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 11/11/17 9:43am

kohler

California really, truly wants all votes to be equal.

That's why California is among the states that have enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 11/11/17 9:44am

kohler

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored like the big ones because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 11/11/17 9:45am

kohler

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #77 posted 11/11/17 9:47am

kohler

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.


Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #78 posted 11/11/17 9:50am

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Graycap23 said:

The country lost.......anyone who is paying attention can see that.

A system where someone has 3 million more votes and loses is a joke.

[Edited 11/11/17 8:28am]

you want to change the rules after the game is over... plain and simple.


In order for you to continue to mock us who are rightfully pissed off that Donald Trump won the
presidency despite losing the popular vote, you must make it seem like our gripes with the Electoral
College is an argument made out of the inconvenience of our preferred candidate losing. Sure, I will
admit that I preferred Clinton over Trump, but the substance of the argument is:

1. Cogent - it is only 90% of the time that the Electoral College's vote reflects the popular vote, which
is a percentage if contextualized in electing some other official, would be considered criminal. Yet, if
there have been only five times (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016) when the Electoral College
process saw the winner of the popular vote still lose the presidency, then that means that 90% of the
time, the popular vote, even though not directly electing the president, has been what the people
nationally desired, which means the mechanism of the national popular vote fucking works! What is
the takeaway here? Electing the US president via the popular vote is rational.

2. Historical - there has been controversy with the concept and practice of the Electoral College's
function since 1800 when Jefferson won the presidency over Burr. Says this article:

"Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican candidate for president received the same number of
electoral votes as his chosen running mate, Aaron Burr. The election went to the House of
Representatives, dominated by the rival Federalist Party; some of the party’s members saw Burr as
less objectionable than Jefferson, and wanted him to become president. After a chaotic process,
including no fewer than 36 votes, Jefferson was elected president and Burr V.P. The whole debacle
led to the adoption of the 12th Amendment, which mandated that electors specify their choices for
president and vice president."

So, don't make it seem like our modern bellyaching over such an arcane voting mechanism is one
that isn't coherent and is a new gripe; there have been people pissed about the function and existence
of the Electoral College for over two hundred years. In other words: wanting to change the process
of electing the US president due to the silliness of the Electoral College in 2017 has historical prece-
dence.








[Edited 11/11/17 10:23am]

[Edited 11/11/17 10:25am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #79 posted 11/11/17 10:32am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Dasein said:



OnlyNDaUsa said:




Graycap23 said:



The country lost.....anyone who is paying attention can see that.


A system where someone has 3 million more votes and loses is a joke.


[Edited 11/11/17 8:28am]




you want to change the rules after the game is over... plain and simple.




In order for you to continue to mock us who are rightfully pissed off that Donald Trump won the
presidency despite losing the popular vote, you must make it seem like our gripes with the Electoral
College is an argument made out of the inconvenience of our preferred candidate losing. Sure, I will
admit that I preferred Clinton over Trump, but the substance of the argument is:

1. Cogent - it is only 90% of the time that the Electoral College's vote reflects the popular vote, which
is a percentage if contextualized in electing some other official, would be considered criminal. Yet, if
there have been only five times (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016) when the Electoral College
process saw the winner of the popular vote still lose the presidency, then that means that 90% of the
time, the popular vote, even though not directly electing the president, has been what the people
nationally desired, which means the mechanism of the national popular vote fucking works! What is
the takeaway here? Electing the US president via the popular vote is rational.

2. Historical - there has been controversy with the concept and practice of the Electoral College's
function since 1800 when Jefferson won the presidency over Burr. Says this article:

"Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican candidate for president received the same number of
electoral votes as his chosen running mate, Aaron Burr. The election went to the House of
Representatives, dominated by the rival Federalist Party; some of the party’s members saw Burr as
less objectionable than Jefferson, and wanted him to become president. After a chaotic process,
including no fewer than 36 votes, Jefferson was elected president and Burr V.P. The whole debacle
led to the adoption of the 12th Amendment, which mandated that electors specify their choices for
president and vice president."

So, don't make it seem like our modern bellyaching over such an arcane voting mechanism is one
that isn't coherent and is a new gripe; there have been people pissed about the function and existence
of the Electoral College for over two hundred years. In other words: wanting to change the process
of electing the US president due to the silliness of the Electoral College in 2017 has historical prece-
dence.









[Edited 11/11/17 10:23am]

[Edited 11/11/17 10:25am]



Thank you my friend for expressing this. Well done, sir !
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #80 posted 11/11/17 11:01am

Graycap23

avatar

kohler said:

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

The EC is played out.

1 man, 1 vote and tally the totals.

Anything besides this is in place 2 control the outcome. The last 2 republicans have proven this point.

Hell.......Trump even told u it was coming during his run.

Correct a wise man and u create a leader. Correct a FOOL and u create an enemy.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #81 posted 11/11/17 11:01am

poppys

jjhunsecker said:

Dasein said:


In order for you to continue to mock us who are rightfully pissed off that Donald Trump won the
presidency despite losing the popular vote, you must make it seem like our gripes with the Electoral
College is an argument made out of the inconvenience of our preferred candidate losing. Sure, I will
admit that I preferred Clinton over Trump, but the substance of the argument is:

1. Cogent - it is only 90% of the time that the Electoral College's vote reflects the popular vote, which
is a percentage if contextualized in electing some other official, would be considered criminal. Yet, if
there have been only five times (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016) when the Electoral College
process saw the winner of the popular vote still lose the presidency, then that means that 90% of the
time, the popular vote, even though not directly electing the president, has been what the people
nationally desired, which means the mechanism of the national popular vote fucking works! What is
the takeaway here? Electing the US president via the popular vote is rational.

2. Historical - there has been controversy with the concept and practice of the Electoral College's
function since 1800 when Jefferson won the presidency over Burr. Says this article:

"Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican candidate for president received the same number of
electoral votes as his chosen running mate, Aaron Burr. The election went to the House of
Representatives, dominated by the rival Federalist Party; some of the party’s members saw Burr as
less objectionable than Jefferson, and wanted him to become president. After a chaotic process,
including no fewer than 36 votes, Jefferson was elected president and Burr V.P. The whole debacle
led to the adoption of the 12th Amendment, which mandated that electors specify their choices for
president and vice president."

So, don't make it seem like our modern bellyaching over such an arcane voting mechanism is one
that isn't coherent and is a new gripe; there have been people pissed about the function and existence
of the Electoral College for over two hundred years. In other words: wanting to change the process
of electing the US president due to the silliness of the Electoral College in 2017 has historical prece-
dence.


Thank you my friend for expressing this. Well done, sir !

YES! you have my vote. The precedence break-down is especially refreshing. Combats the "sore loser" drumbeat.

Kick the old-school joints. For the true funk soldiers.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #82 posted 11/16/17 3:07am

Chancellor

avatar

I was all for keeping the Electoral College during the years of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama & Hillary and I'm not changing my mind simply becuz we have to put up with The Mad King...

Hillary LOST and we have to move on and fight in 2018 & 2020...

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #83 posted 11/16/17 6:41am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Here's a better idea: We run the country. Get rid of leaders.

"2freaky is a complete stud." DJ
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #84 posted 11/16/17 8:05am

Dasein

Chancellor said:

I was all for keeping the Electoral College during the years of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama & Hillary and I'm not changing my mind simply becuz we have to put up with The Mad King...

Hillary LOST and we have to move on and fight in 2018 & 2020...


Why were you "all for keeping" the Electoral College? That's kinda like arguing for keeping
your coccyx around just for shits and giggles.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #85 posted 11/16/17 8:24am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

Chancellor said:

I was all for keeping the Electoral College during the years of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama & Hillary and I'm not changing my mind simply becuz we have to put up with The Mad King...

Hillary LOST and we have to move on and fight in 2018 & 2020...


Why were you "all for keeping" the Electoral College? That's kinda like arguing for keeping
your coccyx around just for shits and giggles.

I am for keeping it because I think the views and ideas and wants and needs of the nation as a whole are better represented with it in place.

I have to assume that you wanted a runoff in 1992 or 1996 and 2000? (seems to me Bush would have won a recount in 92 and Dole may have won in 96...but gore would have likely won in 2000)

right? Bill NEVER got a majority of the made-up popular vote. So if you really believe in a popular vote then I am not seeing a consistent way to not agree?

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #86 posted 11/16/17 8:25am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Here's a better idea: We run the country. Get rid of leaders.

because someone would take over...

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #87 posted 11/16/17 9:24am

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:


Why were you "all for keeping" the Electoral College? That's kinda like arguing for keeping
your coccyx around just for shits and giggles.

I am for keeping it because I think the views and ideas and wants and needs of the nation as a whole are better represented with it in place.

I have to assume that you wanted a runoff in 1992 or 1996 and 2000? (seems to me Bush would have won a recount in 92 and Dole may have won in 96...but gore would have likely won in 2000)

right? Bill NEVER got a majority of the made-up popular vote. So if you really believe in a popular vote then I am not seeing a consistent way to not agree?

Why ? How is that better than "one person, one vote, " ?

And why is the concept of the "popular vote" made up ? As you always say, it's math. They are simply pointing out which candidate received what amount of votes . This is mentioned in almost every major news publication . Are you saying that YOU know more than THEM ?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #88 posted 11/16/17 9:27am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Chancellor said:

I was all for keeping the Electoral College during the years of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama & Hillary and I'm not changing my mind simply becuz we have to put up with The Mad King...

Hillary LOST and we have to move on and fight in 2018 & 2020...

The problem is that it gives too much weight to some voters, and too little to others. And candidates only try to play to their base, and not to the whole country. Clinton should have been campaigning in Alabama. Trump- a native New Yorker- did not have one event in his home city ! The demographics of America has changed- economically, educationally, ethnically- but the EC is out of date for these changes.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #89 posted 11/16/17 9:52am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

We would take over. Stay on topic.

"2freaky is a complete stud." DJ
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Let the People pick the President ! Get rid of the Electoral College