NY Times calls for end to Electoral College

anatta said:
probably. but if one is going to argue for the merits of the EC it has to be on more then temporal political grounds.
Politics shifts/demographics shift. There has to be an underlying institutional reason for the EC,and I beleive that si the same
as it ever was -a republic formation of government
Click to expand...

It was never about a representative government you fool.
The founders were all royals,
Washington had more royal blood than George the III.
The EC is about maintaining Aristocratic control of the country.
You fucking idiotic useful fool.
You are your own and every American's worst enemy.
 
cawacko said:
I'm not a political professional but again I don't see small states overturning the EC based on that.
Click to expand...

Of course they won't .. but you make the case for cow states having too much power.

This is evolution brother. The purpose of voting is clear.
 
leaningright said:
IKR... But we work to make Christmas day all about the food. :)

The case of DC vs. Heller in 2008. While the case was specifically about law concerning gun locks and assembly in DC the decision that the 2nd applied to individual ownership was addressed. Basically the decision came down 5-4 that the 2nd guaranteed the individual (outside of Law Enforcement and the military) the right to own a gun. 5-4 ... and now Scalia is dead. If that was ever revisited with a Hillary appointed SC justice in place it would probably go the other way. Take away the individual's right under the 2nd and you've essentially eliminated the 2nd. Take a look at the dissenting opinion in the case. To a gun owner, much less a gun enthusiast, language like this is scary.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Antonin_Scalia_Gun_Control.htm
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....I guess I can see your point, given the dissenting opinion.

I actually agree w/ the concept of the 2nd opinion. I do think the way the 2nd is written, it is clearly tied into militias. But, I also think people should have a basic right to own a gun.

I always wish that we didn't have such a strong gun culture, though. Some on the right say we'd be safer if everyone carried, but that seems impossible to me, given people's volatile emotions - bar fights, road rage, even town hall meetings that get out of hand.

And it's a bummer that some people vote on that one issue. I'm sure you considered more than that, and I know your dislike for Hillary, but I know it's a one-issue thing for a lot of people. Or 3 issues for others, "God, gays & guns," which I also think is sort of an odd set of priorities when it comes to legislating & governing.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
What have you been smoking lol?

If minorities don't hate white people by now it's to their credit, given some of the demagoguery that drives identity politics.

You are painfully unaware of your glass house.
Click to expand...

Yet another white guy who votes for the all-white party that only white people support here talking to me about 'identity politics.' :0)

Smoke won't make you that stupid .. what have you been drinking is the question.

.. and this ain't (eb) about hate of white people .. it's about hating pink people. :0) Hate the pinkies.
 
Rune said:
It was never about a representative government you fool.
The founders were all royals,
Washington had more royal blood than George the III.
The EC is about maintaining Aristocratic control of the country.
You fucking idiotic useful fool.
You are your own and every American's worst enemy.
Click to expand...
where is today's "aristocracy" enabled/facilitated by the EC??
as BAC calls them "cow states" -define how cow states are an aristocracy?
 
anatta said:
I don't know about "mob rule".
Sticking to the subject, and attempting not to be partisan ( recall there is nothing about Partys in the Constitution)


The fact of the matter is, our elections have become partisan. The partisanship was crafted via identity politics as practiced by democrats demagoguing particular groups. These groups, tend to be urban dwellers. They do not however represent the vast landscape of America. THS is why the electoral college, in a Representative Republic, which we are, PROTECTS us from mob rule.
Click to expand...
 
blackascoal said:
Of course they won't .. but you make the case for cow states having too much power.

This is evolution brother. The purpose of voting is clear.
Click to expand...

See, there you go lol. Invoking evolution in that sense is social Darwinism. You might as well come out and say you wish us to die off.

You and Obama can't wait for the browning of America. Which is tantamount to saying white people suck. That's what white red staters hear you both saying. Including whites who voted for Obama---twice.

You and so many in your party really don't get it.
 
BAC, what about Prop 8 and Prop 187 in CA? They passed with majorities yet were not implemented. Should the will of the people prevail?
 
Thing1 said:
Well, that certainly won't happen as long as Republicans are in power. Republicans don't even like it when a lot of people vote.

I wonder if we're seeing the start of a trend? Can the GOP even win the popular vote anymore?
Click to expand...

Not when running against the dead and Illegal immigrants, because the dead can't speak for themselves and the illegal immigrants want free stuff!
 
archives said:
That's beautiful, did it ever occur to you that a whole lot more people live in California than NH, and that they are as much an American as the guy from NH, so why should their vote count less?
Click to expand...

And...that was the point...no? You get rewarded for that population with a greater EC number of votes. You still can't grasp it. The candidate with the most votes still wins.....the popular vote in each state is simply compressed to a certain number of EC votes from each district. Its still a free election. California gets 55 EC VOTES compared to 4 for NH....but each voters voice is still heard...one being no greater than the next regardless of geography and population centers.

Can you imagine the headache should the EC college be removed and replaced with the national popular vote? Instead of having some type FRAUD or Glitch that might be noticed and a recount be needed that is contained to one state or one district.....Hundreds of millions of votes would have to be recounted again and again and again....instead of taking days to launch an investigative recount...it would take months or even years depending upon how many assholes you might have launching lawsuit after lawsuit. Remember Fla.? And that was just one state now multiply that x 50.

Do away with the EC...not no but HELL NO. :) We The People might have a new president once every 20 years.

Its a fair system....and you knew the rule of law going in....but once you lost, its SOUR GRAPES and the Constitutional rule of law should suffer over your parties failure to reach the people they needed to reach? Really?

Your party abandoned the fly over states and the working people that actually live there....and they were pissed because your party took them for granted. It does not take rocket science to figure it out.

FYI: The Electoral College is far more difficult to fraud than any popular vote contained to states, counties and districts. And that's the reason you want to remove the EC...no? Its just like the argument requiring voter ID....without the EC the democrats would have no problem stealing an election should the firewall that is the Constitution be made moot.

I'll say it again....the founders of this nation were GENIUS LOCI....they made a firewall against deceitful, lying politicians that would do anything to garner and maintain power.

Look at the past few weeks alone....there were at least 3 efforts made to steal this election away from the certified winner. And the tactics ranged from Constitutional sedition to law breaking protests, to voter stalking and threats, to actual violent beatdowns, to actually bringing this nation to the brink of war over a failed election.

Again...remove the only firewall we have against such evil assholes? Not no...but hell no.
 
Last edited:
Darth Hussein Omar said:
See, there you go lol. Invoking evolution in that sense is social Darwinism. You might as well come out and say you wish us to die off.

You and Obama can't wait for the browning of America. Which is tantamount to saying white people suck. That's what white red staters hear you both saying. Including whites who voted for Obama---twice.

You and so many in your party really don't get it.
Click to expand...

So, you're going to say some variation of that until the GOP gets shellacked in the next election?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
See, there you go lol. Invoking evolution in that sense is social Darwinism. You might as well come out and say you wish us to die off.

You and Obama can't wait for the browning of America. Which is tantamount to saying white people suck. That's what white red staters hear you both saying. Including whites who voted for Obama---twice.

You and so many in your party really don't get it.
Click to expand...

You're confused dude.

I have no problem with white people .. as years on a board like this can attest to.

I hate pink motherfuckers .. otherwise known as racist whites .. and yes, HELL YES, I wish everyone of them dead.

Racists exist to give white people a bad name .. so I distinguish them by calling them pinkies.

If you don't believe in evolution, that's your problem, but quite obviously this nation is evolving. Don't believe that .. I don't give a damn about what you don't believe.
 
Thing1 said:
So, you're going to say some variation of that until the GOP gets shellacked in the next election?
Click to expand...

Go for it...the conservatives will act as they did in 2008 and 2000, they will take to the streets breaking windows beating people down, stopping traffic, and even might attempt Constitutional Sedition by attempting to intimidate the EC voters with stalking and family death threats....oh MY BAD! The conservatives are not cry baby children. :) None of this happened...it was a peaceful, professional transition of power....unlike 2016 or the Clinton sour grapes of 2000 where the Clinton's trashed the White House and actually stole the silverware before leaving....I would not doubt if they did not poor lead based paint into the plumbing systems. Evil is as Evil does. :)
 
blackascoal said:
I haven't paid much attention to either .. but for you, I will and get back to you.
Click to expand...

Prop 187 was during the nineties that cut off aid to illegal aliens. It passed but was ruled unconstituonal by the court. Prop 8 was the gay marriage vote in 2008 that passed and was shut down by the courts as well.

I ask in the context of how far should the will of the people go? Would you like to see a direct democracy?
 
cawacko said:
Prop 187 was during the nineties that cut off aid to illegal aliens. It passed but was ruled unconstituonal by the court. Prop 8 was the gay marriage vote in 2008 that passed and was shut down by the courts as well.

I ask in the context of how far should the will of the people go? Would you like to see a direct democracy?
Click to expand...

And why are these two propositions the ones brought up? They passed in our most liberal Of states, California. Just think how the rest of the country would vote on those and similar issues if given the opportunity. Mob rule isn't often the best rule.

I also get how those who feel disenfranchised by the EC would like to dismantle it. I have been on both sides of mob rule.
 
cawacko said:
If you know ahead of time it's a direct vote you campaign accordingly. With the rules are the EC you campaign to win the EC, not the direct vote.
Click to expand...

unless you're a Democrat, then you wonder what the fuck an electoral is and why they need to go to school......
 
cawacko said:
Prop 187 was during the nineties that cut off aid to illegal aliens. It passed but was ruled unconstituonal by the court. Prop 8 was the gay marriage vote in 2008 that passed and was shut down by the courts as well.

I ask in the context of how far should the will of the people go? Would you like to see a direct democracy?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they can be viewed in the same context. There is no right to discriminate against Americans you don't like .. which both propositions were. The stain of Prop 8 was that it had so much black support. Shame on them.

That's quite different then declaring the winner of an election. Without the EC, everyone still has the same one vote, thus that discriminates against no one. It's the additional weighting of states that becomes problematic .. and in fact can be viewed as discriminatory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top