• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Electoral College: Purpose, Problems, Alternatives

My view is that states appoint electors. Which is what it says in the constitution.

So proud of you for disposing of the constitution.

already crushed and flushed weeks ago.
 
already crushed and flushed weeks ago - you are like the little dog chasing its own tail and thinking he is closing in.

Yeah. You crushed and flushed the constitution. I'm sure you're proud of yourself. Did you use white-out?
 
already crushed and flushed weeks ago.

Faithless electors don’t have to vote for the winner of that state's popular vote anymore, according to the decision by the 10th circuit. Imagine how that would play out in a close Electoral College vote.
 
Yeah. Post 1404, where you crushed and flushed the constitution. You're a legal genius. It's amazing.

Or pick out any of the over 20, 40, 50, who knows how many more that explained to you how Electors are elected by the people as the way states do it.

None of those made any difference in cracking your thick willful shell of delusion - why should this one?
 
Faithless electors don’t have to vote for the winner of that state's popular vote anymore, according to the decision by the 10th circuit. Imagine how that would play out in a close Electoral College vote.

Which is a good reason to get rid of the EC system.
 
Or pick out any of the over 20, 40, 50, who knows how many more that explained to you how Electors are elected by the people as the way states do it.

None of those made any difference in cracking your thick willful shell of delusion - why should this one?

Yep. You totally refuted the constitution. Haymarket beats the constitution 2019. Remember it!
 
Which is a good reason to get rid of the EC system.

All you need is 38 states do choose to reduce their political power. Good luck with that!
 
Which is a good reason to get rid of the EC system.

Three of those faithless electors went for Collin Powell, meaning he would have been on the House ballot. As it is, gops have the advantage for the contingent elections outlined by the 12th amendment. If DEMs can flip state delegations like WI and FL, and break ties in PA and MI, the House would be 25-25.
 
Three of those faithless electors went for Collin Powell, meaning he would have been on the House ballot. As it is, gops have the advantage for the contingent elections outlined by the 12th amendment. If DEMs can flip state delegations like WI and FL, and break ties in PA and MI, the House would be 25-25.

Just more reasons why we should dump this entire EC system.
 
Just more reasons why we should dump this entire EC system.

All you need is 38 states do choose to reduce their political power. Good luck with that!
 
All you need is 38 states do choose to reduce their political power. Good luck with that!

Your continual and tedious repetition of the already explained is not debate.
 
already explained it to you - your tone deafness is not appealing.

No you didn't say which 38 states would ratify an amendment to the treaty that reduces their political power. You didn't even list one state, actually.
 
No you didn't say which 38 states would ratify an amendment to the treaty that reduces their political power. You didn't even list one state, actually.

Already explained in previous posts .... and you asking the same question repeatedly does not change that. It simply exposes your tactic of gross intellectual fraud.
 
Already explained in previous posts .... and you asking the same question repeatedly does not change that. It simply exposes your tactic of gross intellectual fraud.

I didn't ask a question. I made a statement: No you didn't say which 38 states would ratify an amendment to the treaty that reduces their political power. You didn't even list one state, actually.
 
I didn't ask a question. I made a statement: No you didn't say which 38 states would ratify an amendment to the treaty that reduces their political power. You didn't even list one state, actually.

Previously you did speculate on this line of inquiry and it was previously answered. To pretend otherwise is insanity and delusion.
 
Previously you did speculate on this line of inquiry and it was previously answered. To pretend otherwise is insanity and delusion.

Oh come on. You never provided the name of even one state that would ratify an amendment to the treaty that would reduce her political power. You're not fooling anyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom