Why we have an electoral college [W:196]

[OpportunityCost]

How exactly is that relevant? How many of those "other countries around the world" were declaring human equality at their founding while practicing slavery?

No race card here just ignorant and irrelevant comments by you.

WTF are you blabbering about?

You are by definition playing the race card.

Instead of endlessly crabbing about something, I anxiously await action towards a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College, seeing as all the polling says its immensely popular. Put your money where your very loud mouths are.

 

[Removable Mind]

Some southern states used to have tests along those lines. They were made unconstitutional because they were intended to keep African Americans from voting.

I don't see the relationship. All Americans, regardless of color, should learn enough about America to pass the test for citizenship.

Now, I've seen poll taxes and other types of gimmicks to prevent people of color and probably others (for various reasons) being declared unconstitutional, but not what I'm suggesting.

If you find any info directly related to my suggestion, drop me a post.

 

[prometeus]

You are by definition playing the race card.

I suggest you get a dictionary.

Instead of endlessly crabbing about something

I am not crabbing about anything. I refuted a flawed argument and I expressed my opinion on the electoral college. If you have a valid argument one way or the other, then by all means please put it forth if you just do not like it, well learn to deal with it.

I anxiously await action towards a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College

Good for you, I do not give a crap about your anxiousness.

 

[Fenton]

Your explanation is incomplete.

The two votes, popular and electoral, are completely different. The former is popular, that is, of the voting electorate on election day. The total number of votes are counted, verified and announced officially.

The second vote is Winner-take-all, that is, whoever wins the popular vote of a particular state, is assigned the total electoral vote of that state. So, where's the problem?

The problem derives from the fact that the number of voters in the electoral college is not proportionately representative of the total voters in the state. It cannot be because the electoral vote is NOT IN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE POPULAR VOTE IN THE STATES.

For both sides of the same question:
*Time to End the Electoral College, extract:

Yes, Mr. Trump won under the rules, but the rules should change so that a presidential election reflects the will of Americans and promotes a more participatory democracy.

The vote is therefore Not Democratic and is both unfair and wrong, wrong, wrong. The Popular Vote in a democracy is the ONLY VOTE of consequence. There is no other.

Thus, in the history of the nation, we have erroneously elected six presidents.

Further reading:
*Time to End the Electoral College
*The Electoral College Is Anything But Outdated. No extract is available.

Uhm....no the popular vote in OUR Presidential election ( you live in FRANCE ) is irrelevent.

The last thing this Nation needs is a bunch of eurotrash telling us, a evolved society how to run our affairs

 

[OpportunityCost]

I suggest you get a dictionary.

Got one, you used the race card.

I

am not crabbing about anything. I refuted a flawed argument and I expressed my opinion on the electoral college. If you have a valid argument one way or the other, then by all means please put it forth if you just do not like it, well learn to deal with it.

You are indeed crabbing about the Electoral College, your opinion is it is flawed, yet its what we use. Hence, legitimate.

Good for you, I do not give a crap about your anxiousness.

Someone needs a hug, so much anger. If you liberals think it is so terrible, surely more of you would be trying to change the EC through amendment, right?

 

[Lafayette]

Uhm....no the popular vote in OUR Presidential election ( you live in FRANCE ) is irrelevent.

The last thing this Nation needs is a bunch of eurotrash telling us, a evolved society how to run our affairs

Piffle and drivel, drivel and piffle ...

 

[Harshaw]

Your explanation is incomplete.

The two votes, popular and electoral, are completely different. The former is popular, that is, of the voting electorate on election day. The total number of votes are counted, verified and announced officially.

The second vote is Winner-take-all, that is, whoever wins the popular vote of a particular state, is assigned the total electoral vote of that state. So, where's the problem?

The problem derives from the fact that the number of voters in the electoral college is not proportionately representative of the total voters in the state. It cannot be because the electoral vote is NOT IN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE POPULAR VOTE IN THE STATES.

For both sides of the same question:
*Time to End the Electoral College, extract:

Yes, Mr. Trump won under the rules, but the rules should change so that a presidential election reflects the will of Americans and promotes a more participatory democracy.

The vote is therefore Not Democratic and is both unfair and wrong, wrong, wrong. The Popular Vote in a democracy is the ONLY VOTE of consequence. There is no other.

Thus, in the history of the nation, we have erroneously elected six presidents.

Further reading:
*Time to End the Electoral College
*The Electoral College Is Anything But Outdated. No extract is available.

Why should the rules change?

You just declare that they should.

Why? Why does the election of the chief administrator of a union of states need to be done by direct democracy, ignoring those states?

 

[Lafayette]

Why does the election of the chief administrator of a union of states need to be done by direct democracy, ignoring those states?

In a democracy yes. Fundamental to any democracy is respect for the voting process. It is the absolute authority in the land, and there is no other. (Unless you concoct another one that you can manipulate, which Jefferson did in 1804 with Article 17. You know, these Founding Fathers, they did not walk-on-water!)

My point is "Why should they remain the same for more than two centuries. The EC was wrong at its inception, and after 6 false-Presidents it needs to be changed.

Old adage, "Either do things right or not at all ..."

 

[Harshaw]

In a democracy yes. Fundamental to any democracy is respect for the voting process. It is the absolute authority in the land, and there is no other. (Unless you concoct another one that you can manipulate, which Jefferson did in 1804 with Article 17. You know, these Founding Fathers, they did not walk-on-water!)

My point is "Why should they remain the same for more than two centuries. The EC was wrong at its inception, and after 6 false-Presidents it needs to be changed.

Old adage, "Either do things right or not at all ..."

We don't have a democracy, and we don't want a democracy. Neither do you.

And no, "democracy" is NOT "absolute authority in the land." We have a constitutional republic, with numerous limitations of power and respect for rights.

There were no "false Presidents"; they were duly-elected according to the rules.

 

[prometeus]

Got one, you used the race card.

Learn how to use it or have someone explain it to you.

You are indeed crabbing about the Electoral College, your opinion is it is flawed, yet its what we use. Hence, legitimate.

Typical uneducated banter. You are attempting to legitimize the status quo because that is what it is.

Someone needs a hug, so much anger.

If you read a book or two you would not need a hug.

If you liberals think it is so terrible

If you were capable of an intelligent argument, you would not have to use moronic labels.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Learn how to use it or have someone explain it to you.

Typical uneducated banter. You are attempting to legitimize the status quo because that is what it is.

If you read a book or two you would not need a hug.

If you were capable of an intelligent argument, you would not have to use moronic labels.

I'm attempting to legitimize the legitimate process? You have some strange standards.

 

[prometeus]

I'm attempting to legitimize the legitimate process? You have some strange standards.

As I said, ask for someone to explain things to you.

 

[OpportunityCost]

As I said, ask for someone to explain things to you.

I don't need anyone to explain it. You are attempting to delegitimize the election process of the last 200+ years over butthurt. The process is legitimate by definition. Put some work into an amendment and quit bemoaning the legal, legitimate, constitutional process.

 

[prometeus]

I don't need anyone to explain it.

Willful ignorance is a poor choice.

You are attempting to delegitimize the election process

Where have I done that? I am raising an issue whether the electoral college is still relevant and appropriate. That in your partisan ignorance you can not see that is the result of that willful ignorance already displayed.

of the last 200+ years over butthurt.

Moronic assumptions do not validate ignorant assertions.

The process is legitimate by definition.

Yes, the law is legal because it is the law. Can you see how stupid such an assertion is? Of course it is legal, but is it still good? I will not ask you to argue that, since it is clearly beyond what you can do.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Willful ignorance is a poor choice.

Where have I done that? I am raising an issue whether the electoral college is still relevant and appropriate. That in your partisan ignorance you can not see that is the result of that willful ignorance already displayed.

Moronic assumptions do not validate ignorant assertions.

Yes, the law is legal because it is the law. Can you see how stupid such an assertion is? Of course it is legal, but is it still good? I will not ask you to argue that, since it is clearly beyond what you can do.

You have already played the race card about the founding of the country, any remark I make about the constitution and the intent of the Electoral College is lost on you.

The law makes sure that candidates appeal to a wide cross section of the country, both small and large towns, large states and small. Hillary failed to do that, her support was almost entirely metros. Had she won, we would not be having this conversation, its sour grapes, whether you can admit that honestly is clear.

 

[Gina]

Willful ignorance is a poor choice.

Where have I done that? I am raising an issue whether the electoral college is still relevant and appropriate. That in your partisan ignorance you can not see that is the result of that willful ignorance already displayed.

Moronic assumptions do not validate ignorant assertions.

Yes, the law is legal because it is the law. Can you see how stupid such an assertion is? Of course it is legal, but is it still good? I will not ask you to argue that, since it is clearly beyond what you can do.

You have already played the race card about the founding of the country, any remark I make about the constitution and the intent of the Electoral College is lost on you.

The law makes sure that candidates appeal to a wide cross section of the country, both small and large towns, large states and small. Hillary failed to do that, her support was almost entirely metros. Had she won, we would not be having this conversation, its sour grapes, whether you can admit that honestly is clear.

Moderator's Warning:

You guys need to move on. This back and forth is getting personal. If you return to the thread, please drop this line of responses.

 

[blarg]

I think that to qualify as a voter one must take and pass the same test that persons take to become a citizen of the US. Then do away with the E.C.

as long as we give every one an equally funded education i might go for that

 

[blarg]

Would you have said that if Clinton had only won the electoral college and not the popular vote? There is a reason our founding fathers set up our democracy in this manner and it has worked forever and a day until one group suddenly didn't get the outcome they wanted and now they want to complain. Get over it - please and move on.

might have

we scraped the articles of confederation and have amended the constitution so its definitely not infallible




so quit assuming things about me and try to give me a better reason to move on

from what i understand a large number of are presidents have won the popular vote and we are still hear

 

[blarg]

Never mind that other countries were engaged in slavery around the world, eh? Playing the race card on the entire founding of the country is sure going to win your argument.

The real question, why cant the left quit crying about it and do something legitimately through the constitutional process for once?

um thinck the point their was that the founding fathers weer not perfect so the idea that we should not change how we do things becase they set it up that way is flawed

 

[blarg]

We don't have a democracy, and we don't want a democracy. Neither do you.

And no, "democracy" is NOT "absolute authority in the land." We have a constitutional republic, with numerous limitations of power and respect for rights.

There were no "false Presidents"; they were duly-elected according to the rules.

um id like the election of are representatives to be a democracy for most of them it is any way

 

[OpportunityCost]

um thinck the point their was that the founding fathers weer not perfect so the idea that we should not change how we do things becase they set it up that way is flawed

There is a process to change the Electoral College, by amending the Constitution. I don't believe it to be flawed. If you can get enough people to believe it is flawed you can amend it for changes.

 

[Lafayette]

We don't have a democracy, and we don't want a democracy. Neither do you.

And no, "democracy" is NOT "absolute authority in the land." We have a constitutional republic, with numerous limitations of power and respect for rights.

There were no "false Presidents"; they were duly-elected according to the rules.

Rules written in the electoral circumstance of the nation in 1804, which are long since outdated.

You are refusing reality. There is no further reason to waste bandwidth.

Moving right along ...

 

[Lafayette]

We don't have a democracy, and we don't want a democracy. Neither do you.

And no, "democracy" is NOT "absolute authority in the land." We have a constitutional republic, with numerous limitations of power and respect for rights.

There were no "false Presidents"; they were duly-elected according to the rules.

What drivel.

Moving right along ...

 

[blarg]

There is a process to change the Electoral College, by amending the Constitution. I don't believe it to be flawed. If you can get enough people to believe it is flawed you can amend it for changes.

yes that is so

 

[Harshaw]

um id like the election of are representatives to be a democracy for most of them it is any way

Um . . . OK?