NY Times calls for end to Electoral College

Damocles said:
There was a direct election in your state. Then the electoral college which represented that election at the Federal level.
Click to expand...

77,000 votes in three states decided the election rather than the overwhelming popular vote.

Times have changed since 1787. The Founders fucked up a number of things. We've fixed those over the years. Time to fix this one.
 
Brain Food said:
Wake up. Get a fucking clue. So if you got 1,000 votes for dumb ass of the year award and Hillary Destroyer got 700, but doctordog got to choose and he chose Hillary Destroyer you can't tell me or Thing 1 you wouldn't be pissed. You would be.
Click to expand...

if I was a stupid kid I would. I did. 1980 til 2000. then I woke up and grew up. then I was totally involved for about ten years. then I dissented to the whole mess. it is good.
 
Thing1 said:
That doesn't even make sense. They have a vote, just like the folks in the big states.
Click to expand...
It makes complete sense to any intelligent person. It is why, one of the reasons, the founders created the EC, because they didn't want one state to control a national election.

Read up on it and educate yourself.
 
When you lose, your ability to rationalize, obfuscate, Dodge, reinvent, and just plain make up stuff is hyper-acute. You'll do or say anything to reduce the pain and misery, as well as the firsthand experience of getting schnookered.

It's embarrassing, but it's your turn in the barrel.

Take your licks.
 
Yaya said:
It makes complete sense to any intelligent person. It is why, one of the reasons, the founders created the EC, because they didn't want one state to control a national election.

Read up on it and educate yourself.
Click to expand...

In this age of instant communication, unlike the 18th century, people across the entire nation can obtain all the info they want about a candidate. That was one reason for the EC. That condition no longer exists. The other reason was slavery.

And your premise about one state is also false.

A President needs to have the support of at least a plurality, if not the majority. Trump has neither.
 
domer76 said:
In this age of instant communication, unlike the 18th century, people across the entire nation can obtain all the info they want about a candidate. That was one reason for the EC. That condition no longer exists. The other reason was slavery.

And your premise about one state is also false.

A President needs to have the support of at least a plurality, if not the majority. Trump has neither.
Click to expand...

I see you read BAC's "Some claim" opinion piece.

The EC is genius in its ability to bring every state in the republic to the table. We don't need or want a regional candidate.

Trump is your president- you can deny him your fielty, but it doesn't change his presidency over all Americans.

Stop being a TARD.
 
Yaya said:
It makes complete sense to any intelligent person. It is why, one of the reasons, the founders created the EC, because they didn't want one state to control a national election.

Read up on it and educate yourself.
Click to expand...

You said that the EC gives people in smaller states a voice.

They have as much of a voice as anyone when it comes to voting & electing a President. Everyone has one vote.
 
domer76 said:
In this age of instant communication, unlike the 18th century, people across the entire nation can obtain all the info they want about a candidate. That was one reason for the EC. That condition no longer exists. The other reason was slavery.

And your premise about one state is also false.

A President needs to have the support of at least a plurality, if not the majority. Trump has neither.
Click to expand...
You fucking idiot, my reason was talked about by the founders.

It is not false, just because you say so doesn't make it so. Communication has nothing to do with a smaller state having no voice in the election.
 
Thing1 said:
You said that the EC gives people in smaller states a voice.

They have as much of a voice as anyone when it comes to voting & electing a President. Everyone has one vote.
Click to expand...
I see you didn't educate yourself on the reasons the founders created the EC with regard to lesser populated states.

Continue on in your ignorance, you are blissful I hope.
 
domer76 said:
77,000 votes in three states decided the election rather than the overwhelming popular vote.

Times have changed since 1787. The Founders fucked up a number of things. We've fixed those over the years. Time to fix this one.
Click to expand...

Oh, stop with the overwhelming population hyperbole finally. Plus 2-3 million out of 120 million is a *skinny* majority.

When the popular vote winner gets into double digit percentage we can start talking about doing away with the EC. In the meantime, stop whining and grow up and take your licks like we did the past 8 years.
 
Rune said:
Damn you are thick. They are members of the royal family. All of them.
They are not common Americans.
I can't believe you are this fucking stupid but it explains how you can be such a traitor to humanity.
Click to expand...

If you go back 40 generations ffs.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
domer76 said:
77,000 votes in three states decided the election rather than the overwhelming popular vote.

Times have changed since 1787. The Founders fucked up a number of things. We've fixed those over the years. Time to fix this one.
Click to expand...
in reality three votes in three states could decide the election......its how it is supposed to work.......its not broken......it doesn't need fixing.....
 
domer76 said:
77,000 votes in three states decided the election rather than the overwhelming popular vote.

Times have changed since 1787. The Founders fucked up a number of things. We've fixed those over the years. Time to fix this one.
Click to expand...

One state is responsible for the lopsided popular vote. The Founders would have called this tyranny.
 
Thing1 said:
That doesn't even make sense. They have a vote, just like the folks in the big states.
Click to expand...

Do you realize that without LA County and New York City, Trump would have won the popular vote by nearly 500,000? Do you really think it would be OK for these two areas, basically non-diverse with respect to political preference, should rule over the rest of the country?
 
Right said:
Do you realize that without LA County and New York City, Trump would have won the popular vote by nearly 500,000? Do you really think it would be OK for these two areas, basically non-diverse with respect to political preference, should rule over the rest of the country?
Click to expand...

Exactly. It has nothing to do with democracy or fairness.

It's the only way they can advance the progressive agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top