Faithless Voters

[t&y]

Interesting. This might give Trump an actual reason to campaign in California. Can you imagine what fit our local libturds would throw if Cali Electoral College actually turned out in favor of Trump

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pick-our-president/ar-AAG8tdZ?ocid=spartandhp

 

[spectra3279]

Interesting. This might give Trump an actual reason to campaign in California. Can you imagine what fit our local libturds would throw if Cali Electoral College actually turned out in favor of Trump

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pick-our-president/ar-AAG8tdZ?ocid=spartandhp

Wishful thinking but kommifornia is rigged

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[coolchange]

Isn't that how killary won Hawaii? Super deligate flopped and voted Clinton over Bernie against the popular vote.

 

[Carlson-jet]

Funny How the The Democratic Party really isn't democratic at all.

 

[Old Texan]

I see this as a bad thing in many potential circumstances. Talk about someone putting a target on their back.......Going against the will of the people by negating their votes could be a serious mistake.

Lot of anti Trumpers licking their chops on this wild new hope

 

[squeezer]

Would love to see this happen... Would be the death knell of the electoral college.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Would love to see this happen... Would be the death knell of the electoral college.

Or something else to whine and cry about when it didn't go your way?

 

[squeezer]

Or something else to whine and cry about when it didn't go your way?

Not really,

Just updating a system that would allow 23% of the vote to elect the president.

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/5001...residency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Not really,

Just updating a system that would allow 23% of the vote to elect the president.

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/5001...residency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote

That is a meaningless article. They reference 23% of the vote as a percentage of regiatered voters but about half the registered voters didn't bother vote.
So of the half that DID vote, slightly less than half of them could decide an election. Based on varied population densities, that seems like it is working just fine.

 

[Taboma]

If the EC electorates are by principle, supposed to vote that state's popular vote, then why have the human electorates at all ?
Why not replace them with a fixed number of electoral votes per state, that they currently represent, or are supposed to ?

 

[squeezer]

That is a meaningless article. It is 23% of the vote because about half the registered voters didn't vote. So of the half that DID vote, slightly less than half of them could decide an election. Based on population densities on the coasts, that seems like it is working just fine.

The article is reductio ad absurdum but does make a point.

The idea that living in a high density area vs. a low density area should make ones vote worth less is what I take exception with. The 26 smallest states, with 18% of the population, can hold a senate majority. And that is total population not red vs. blue... Senators representing their states is fine, House members representing their districts is fine, the President however should represent the country which is clearly not the case with the EC as it is.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

The article is reductio ad absurdum but does make a point.

The idea that living in a high density area vs. a low density area should make ones vote worth less is what I take exception with. The 26 smallest states, with 18% of the population, can hold a senate majority. And that is total population not red vs. blue... Senators representing their states is fine, House members representing their districts is fine, the President however should represent the country which is clearly not the case with the EC as it is.

You just made an argument to keep the EC. By your own description you are now giving even smaller areas (4 large cities) with higher population densities the ability to run the entire rest of country, and diluting the vote of the rest of the entire nation.

My presidential vote is worthless in CA, I'm not complaining.

No ones vote is ever going to be hold the same weight until we have equal population density in every state, which will never happen.

 

[squeezer]

You just made an argument to keep the EC. By your own description you are now giving even smaller areas (4 large cities) with higher population densities the ability to run the entire rest of country, and diluting the vote of the rest of the entire nation.

My presidential vote is worthless in CA, I'm not complaining.

No ones vote is ever going to be hold the same weight until we have equal population density in every state, which will never happen.

AREA should have nothing to do with how we elect a president. Representation by population is one of the founding tenets of a representative republic. The Senate and EC are not even close.

Your presidential vote in California would be worth exactly what everyone else's is if there was no EC. (So you just made my point...)

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

AREA should have nothing to do with how we elect a president. Representation by population is one of the founding tenets of a representative republic. The Senate and EC are not even close.

Your presidential vote in California would be worth exactly what everyone else's is if there was no EC. (So you just made my point...)

Agreed, the area should have nothing to do with it. and by doing away with the EC you are making a few areas able to elect a president by themselves. That is the representation by population the founders were going for with the EC system... to give the entire population a voice. No one said it was an equal voice.

 

[squeezer]

Agreed, the area should have nothing to do with it. and by doing away with the EC you are making a few areas able to elect a president by themselves. That is the representation by population the founders were going for with the EC system... to give the entire population a voice. No one said it was an equal voice.

You call it "A few areas", I call it the majority of American voters...

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

You call it "A few areas", I call it the majority of American voters...

You said yourself "AREA should have nothing to do with how we elect a president." yet that is exactly what you are proposing. You can't have both Squeeze. You need to back off of 1 of your 2 stances.

Either, yes you are OK with 4 major US cities deciding the presidency, and the rest of the countries votes don't matter at all because of disparate population densities.. or you accept the way it is with EC system that at least is an attempt to let everyone's vote count across the country, even though you are upset it sometimes does yield the result you would like.

In either scenario voters get screwed. It sounds like you would like to screw more voters as long as the elections results go your way. In your model, a couple million extra Hillary popular voters in 2 CA counties (TWO) didn't get their way and you want to do away with the EC system. This would be at the expense of tens of millions of voters across the country. CA's voice was heard. All it's electoral votes went to Clinton. I didn't vote for her and I'm not complaining about the system.

Yet "Areas shouldn't have anything to do with presidential elections...". Yep your rationale makes perfect sense.

 

[spectra3279]

You said yourself "AREA should have nothing to do with how we elect a president." yet that is exactly what you are proposing. You can't have both Squeeze. You need to back off of 1 of your 2 stances.

Either, yes you are OK with 4 major US cities deciding the presidency, and the rest of the countries votes don't matter at all because of disparate population densities.. or you accept the way it is with EC system that at least is an attempt to let everyone's vote count across the country, even though you are upset it sometimes does yield the result you would like.

In either scenario voters get screwed. It sounds like you would like to screw more voters as long as the elections results go your way. In your model, a couple million extra Hillary popular voters in 2 CA counties (TWO) didn't get their way and you want to do away with the EC system. This would be at the expense of tens of millions of voters across the country. CA's voice was heard. All it's electoral votes went to Clinton. I didn't vote for her and I'm not complaining about the system.

Yet "Areas shouldn't have anything to do with presidential elections...". Yep your rationale makes perfect sense.

The EC is to make sure each states votes count. The president is elected by the states, not by the people. Otherwise newyork city, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco would elect the president

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

The EC is to make sure each states votes count. The president is elected by the states, not by the people. Otherwise newyork city, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco would elect the president

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

No no no, Squeezer said areas (aka cities) should not be deciding national elections.

He also said screw what those other states want, they don't have a majority of voters in them.

 

[regor]

A Constitutional Republic that has stood for over two centuries and Squeaky and his fellow turds are hell bent on removing any and all road blocks that impend their corrupt dreams!!!!!!!

 

[wallnutz]

The EC is to make sure each states votes count. The president is elected by the states, not by the people. Otherwise newyork city, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco would elect the president

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

They know what’s best for everyone.

Here is some of squeezers neighbors that know best too.

We should all bow down and let these guys decide what’s best for us.

 

[squeezer]

You said yourself "AREA should have nothing to do with how we elect a president." yet that is exactly what you are proposing. You can't have both Squeeze. You need to back off of 1 of your 2 stances.

Either, yes you are OK with 4 major US cities deciding the presidency, and the rest of the countries votes don't matter at all because of disparate population densities.. or you accept the way it is with EC system that at least is an attempt to let everyone's vote count across the country, even though you are upset it sometimes does yield the result you would like.

In either scenario voters get screwed. It sounds like you would like to screw more voters as long as the elections results go your way. In your model, a couple million extra Hillary popular voters in 2 CA counties (TWO) didn't get their way and you want to do away with the EC system. This would be at the expense of tens of millions of voters across the country. CA's voice was heard. All it's electoral votes went to Clinton. I didn't vote for her and I'm not complaining about the system.

Yet "Areas shouldn't have anything to do with presidential elections...". Yep your rationale makes perfect sense.

I really dont care where the people who vote live... what I care about is the fact that our system as it functions now does not necessarily elect the president that the majority of the voters want.

As much as the EC is flawed the Senate is the bigger problem. A senator from Vermont represents slightly more than 300K people. A Senator from Texas represents 15 Million people. Why should a Vermont liberal have fifty times more Senate representation than a proud Texan?

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

I really dont care where the people who vote live... what I care about is the fact that our system as it functions now does not necessarily elect the president that the majority of the voters want.

As much as the EC is flawed the Senate is the bigger problem. A senator from Vermont represents slightly more than 300K people. A Senator from Texas represents 15 Million people. Why should a Vermont liberal have fifty times more Senate representation than a proud Texan?

So because you are cornered by your own logic.. lets deflect to the senate!

So you don't care where voters live, and you agree we cant let a couple counties (areas) decide an election.. You have the EC system that solves both of your problems. As stated,the states elect a president not people. How a state turns their popular votes into EC votes is up to them. What is even more moronic is that your state and others now want to award those EC votes to the person who wins the popular vote, regardless of how the popular vote in their state falls.. Even further letting "areas" make a presidential decision for the entire country, which you already said you dont agree with. How is that all working out for you?

As far and senate numbers, that is what the house is for, and that is why there is the senate and the house. By definition equal representation in the Senate is not needed in the house. If your senator is not doing what you want him to do, vote for another one. It is easy, you only have 2 of them.

Life isn't fair Squeezer.

 

[Canuck 1]

Squeezer, if you would have a look at the system you propose you will find it in Canada. This country is run by basically one province and 2 cities. The areas east and west of there do not count or matter, your existing system is the better system

 

[squeezer]

So because you are cornered by your own logic.. lets deflect to the senate!

So you don't care where voters live, and you agree we cant let a couple counties (areas) decide an election.. You have the EC system that solves both of your problems. As stated,the states elect a president not people. How a state turns their popular votes into EC votes is up to them. What is even more moronic is that your state and others now want to award those EC votes to the person who wins the popular vote, regardless of how the popular vote in their state falls.. Even further letting "areas" make a presidential decision for the entire country, which you already said you dont agree with. How is that all working out for you?

As far and senate numbers, that is what the house is for, and that is why there is the senate and the house. By definition equal representation in the Senate is not needed in the house. If your senator is not doing what you want him to do, vote for another one. It is easy, you only have 2 of them.

Life isn't fair Squeezer.

My logic is fine... Your refusal to accept that voting power is disproportionately biased in favor of low density (rural) areas is what the problem is here.

The EC as designed can and has elected a president that the majority of the voters DID NOT VOTE FOR. You try justify this fact by stating that we can’t let 4 or 5 cities decide who is president. I counter that by saying I don’t care where a voter lives I believe for a nationwide office the votes should have equal power nationwide.

I point out the Senate simply because the EC does not fail to deliver the will of the majority of the voters as often as the construct of the Senate does.

 

[squeezer]

Squeezer, if you would have a look at the system you propose you will find it in Canada. This country is run by basically one province and 2 cities. The areas east and west of there do not count or matter, your existing system is the better system

The parliamentary system in Canada is not even close to the three branch system in the US... Eliminating the EC would not change that.

And I would gladly trade you Donald for Justin...

 

[Classic Daycruiser]

Not so fast.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...w-we-pick-our-president/ar-AAG8tdZ?li=BBnbfcL

 

[regor]

My logic is fine... Your refusal to accept that voting power is disproportionately biased in favor of low density (rural) areas is what the problem is here.

The EC as designed can and has elected a president that the majority of the voters DID NOT VOTE FOR. You try justify this fact by stating that we can’t let 4 or 5 cities decide who is president. I counter that by saying I don’t care where a voter lives I believe for a nationwide office the votes should have equal power nationwide.

I point out the Senate simply because the EC does not fail to deliver the will of the majority of the voters as often as the construct of the Senate does.

Okay, I'm going to explain this to you one more time buffoon.

Under your system, a state could issue drivers license to illegal aliens, look the other way when voter fraud occurs and deter the Fed's when they attempt to look into it. Could you imagine a state doing th................oh wait, they already do dope!!!!

THAT is the reason for the EC and no matter how loud you cry, anyone with a brain knows exactly what you're trying to achieve.

 

[was thatguy]

Um, excuse me, the majority population does not elect presidents and that is by design.
STATES elect presidents...by design.
They are not “areas”.

 

[Sandlord]

all the democrats reasons for the elimination of the Electoral College are invalid, until they get rid of their superdelegate process.

 

[Canuck 1]

The parliamentary system in Canada is not even close to the three branch system in the US... Eliminating the EC would not change that.

And I would gladly trade you Donald for Justin...

But what you are asking for is
And when do you want the castro bastard

 

[regor]

But what you are asking for is
And when do you want the castro bastard

hahahahahaha

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

My logic is fine... Your refusal to accept that voting power is disproportionately biased in favor of low density (rural) areas is what the problem is here.

The EC as designed can and has elected a president that the majority of the voters DID NOT VOTE FOR. You try justify this fact by stating that we can’t let 4 or 5 cities decide who is president. I counter that by saying I don’t care where a voter lives I believe for a nationwide office the votes should have equal power nationwide.

I point out the Senate simply because the EC does not fail to deliver the will of the majority of the voters as often as the construct of the Senate does.

The EC system also has elected presidents that the majority of people DID vote for.

Your logic is contradictory. If you are going to cite wanting a popular vote system, ALL the data shows that 4 or 5 cities in America will decide an election. I don't think that half the country living in 4 cities can accurately determine the needs of the rest of the nation.

You refuse to accept that popular voting is disproportionately biased in favor of high density areas. You also say that you don't want small "areas" deciding elections. If all you said was "If we ditch the EC system, several major US cities will decide the entire nationwide election (This is proven in data that is already out there) and I am OK with that.", I can accept that and at least your logic wont contradict itself.

You keep trying to represent the popular vote as if it is best for everyone, and it is only best for the like minded people in the largest cities. Again, this is what the ENTIRE EC system seeks to reduce. If you want your vote to mean more, move I guess.

Again, if you don't like how your senators are voting, vote in new ones.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Okay, I'm going to explain this to you one more time buffoon.

Under your system, a state could issue drivers license to illegal aliens, look the other way when voter fraud occurs and deter the Fed's when they attempt to look into it. Could you imagine a state doing th................oh wait, they already do dope!!!!

THAT is the reason for the EC and no matter how loud you cry, anyone with a brain knows exactly what you're trying to achieve.

Yea I have not even needed to bring that up yet since the entire premise does not even make sense until it is framed by liberal tears.

 

[regor]

Yea I have not even needed to bring that up yet since the entire premise does not even make sense until it is framed by liberal tears.

One thing I've learned when dealing with libturds...........................

 

[boatdoc55]

No no no, Squeezer said areas (aka cities) should not be deciding national elections.

He also said screw what those other states want, they don't have a majority of voters in them.

He's a good little Democrat and could care less about our Country as long as he has the power. Power at ANY cost!!

 

[RVR SWPR]

Above is fact that will repeat in 2020. Above is not some fucked up chopped meme bullshit or nonsense..

 

[was thatguy]

I told those idiots how to never lose another election, but they won’t do it.

All they have to do is “un-nest” from their sanctuaries and send their drones out to dilute the vote in the other “areas” (otherwise known as “States” to the founders and normal thinking people).
But thankfully they won’t do that.

They want to discard the process to make it easy for themselves, and dismantle the process for the exact reasons that the process is in place the way it is.
“Cities” do NOT elect Presidents, never have and were never supposed to. “Majority rules” is NOT the foundation of a constitutional republic.
One day this Relublic will fall. No way around it. But it won’t be while I’m still breathing.

 

[RiverDave]

Okay, I'm going to explain this to you one more time buffoon.

Under your system, a state could issue drivers license to illegal aliens, look the other way when voter fraud occurs and deter the Fed's when they attempt to look into it. Could you imagine a state doing th................oh wait, they already do dope!!!!

THAT is the reason for the EC and no matter how loud you cry, anyone with a brain knows exactly what you're trying to achieve.

What do bufoons, dopes and tards have in common?

See ya Monday

 

[was thatguy]

What do bufoons, dopes and tards have in common?

See ya Monday

 

[spectra3279]

My logic is fine... Your refusal to accept that voting power is disproportionately biased in favor of low density (rural) areas is what the problem is here.

The EC as designed can and has elected a president that the majority of the voters DID NOT VOTE FOR. You try justify this fact by stating that we can’t let 4 or 5 cities decide who is president. I counter that by saying I don’t care where a voter lives I believe for a nationwide office the votes should have equal power nationwide.

I point out the Senate simply because the EC does not fail to deliver the will of the majority of the voters as often as the construct of the Senate does.

Kommifornia has 55 votes. Vermont has 3.

The number of EC votes are determined by population. Every state has 1 vote per the set number of population. This is the equalizer that has been put in place by the FF to account for both size of area and population density. This also acts as a means to keep the takers from make slaves out of the producers. Inner cities have vast numbers of takers.




So you really want 4 cities to rule the country?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[spectra3279]

I told those idiots how to never lose another election, but they won’t do it.

All they have to do is “un-nest” from their sanctuaries and send their drones out to dilute the vote in the other “areas” (otherwise known as “States” to the founders and normal thinking people).
But thankfully they won’t do that.

They want to discard the process to make it easy for themselves, and dismantle the process for the exact reasons that the process is in place the way it is.
“Cities” do NOT elect Presidents, never have and were never supposed to. “Majority rules” is NOT the foundation of a constitutional republic.
One day this Relublic will fall. No way around it. But it won’t be while I’m still breathing.

Actually they are. Houston and several other texas cities are now blue.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[wallnutz]

What do bufoons, dopes and tards have in common?

See ya Monday

RIP you little green bastard!

 

[wallnutz]

Silence the majority to keep the minority happy, perfect.

 

[boatdoc55]

Silence the majority to keep the minority from crying, perfect.

Trump ain't got nothing on 'ol Dave, he's a pretty smart guy also!!!

 

[Old Texan]

If the truth be told, voting has become far too easy to cast a ballot. The left will not bend on requiring photo ID or any ID that gives an absolute on eligibility. The nation is being cheated by fraud. How many fraudulent votes are cast is not the point, all votes should be legitimate

The left tries to lower voting ages, allow incarcerated felons a vote, and other lowlife that, if they vote, it's strictly for the purpose of keeping the freebies flowing.

Voting is a sacred privilege and should be treated as such. The nation in large part has lost sight of that fact and one of the major reasons is the crooks know they need a low intel following that doesn't take time to reason out how they are being used. What is going to be interesting is how a phony like AOC will be treated in the next election. She openly cost her district 25K decent paying jobs and a corporation that would have upgraded amenities in her district. Rather than represent her district, she spends her time on wild ass agendas that will do nothing but harm the nation and her district.

Make voting mean something again by restoring the integrity of the voters