Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post




    Republicans run for president based on the current law, not one that doesn’t exist.
    You can’t assume that a massive change in the way presidents are elected would have no effect on that actual vote.

    The dems did not win the popular vote in 1992.
    They won with less than a majority of the popular vote because Ross Perot did pretty well for a 3rd party candidate.
    In the 1992 POTUS Election Clinton soundly defeated Bush by almost 6 %.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_U...ntial_election

    Trump lost the Popular vote in the 2016 Presidential election. The will of the American people is important. It is rare for a POTUS to be elected despite not winning the popular vote which occurred for example in 2000 and 2016.
    Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

    George S Patton

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Emtos View Post

      You're a migrant. Whites aren't native of North America. English is not native of North America. So yep, you're a migrant and you can be thrown out according to your own logic
      "Native Americans" are not native either.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Freebird View Post

        "Native Americans" are not native either.
        They have acquired enough differences from the Asian populations to become natives.
        There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Emtos View Post

          They have acquired enough differences from the Asian populations to become natives.
          According to who?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Freebird View Post
            According to who?
            To science.
            There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

              In the 1992 POTUS Election Clinton soundly defeated Bush by almost 6 %.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_U...ntial_election

              Trump lost the Popular vote in the 2016 Presidential election. The will of the American people is important. It is rare for a POTUS to be elected despite not winning the popular vote which occurred for example in 2000 and 2016.


              You realize that you have made an effort to prove 2 facts that were not in dispute

              If the will of the American people is being subverted, then change the constitution. That said, the nature of the EC isn't a surprise to anyone. Except maybe Hillary.

              I never said Bush won in 1992. But you have taken the time to tell me he didn't.
              I never said anything about Trump, but you have taken the time to tell me something that isn't relevant.
              Thank you..
              Last edited by Cambronnne; 14 Jan 19, 07:03.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                The states cannot be sovereign. If there is a federal government, it automatically means a loss of sovereignty.

                The system doesn't protect states. Only the states in balance are important, others are not.


                Ok, forgive me, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
                Despite a complete lack of knowledge of the concept of "dual sovereignty" as it applies to the interaction between the States and federal government, you are going to lecture me on the topic.

                So the quick and correct answer to your assertion is:
                "No. You are sadly mistaken."

                The EC is intended to protect the less populous states.
                The US is 50 separate sovereign states. The original States were concerned about a loss of influence at the federal level relative to the more populous states. The original states (colonies) all voluntarily organized themselves into the US. Those States existed prior to the formation of the current federal government.

                Each State has its own government and body of law. When the State's laws conflict with Federal law, Federal law is superior. (See the Supremacy Clause.)


                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                  How can it change the way people vote ? As long as there is two parties, people will vote for one of them. But it can allow to have more parties, which is a danger both for Republicans and Democrats.

                  2/3 of the states are already subservient. The outcome of the election is decided in a dozen of states. The outcome for the others is known in advance.
                  In states like California, republicans have little incentive to vote for president and a republican candidate has no incentive to even bother campaigning there.

                  Under a straight popular vote scheme, that would change. Whether it would make a significant impact on the outcome cannot be known.
                  Also, under that scheme, the small states wouldn't matter. All the campaigning would take place in the populous states. Which is precisely what the framers of our Constitution sought to avoid.

                  The fact that you misunderstood my reference to "2/3rds" of the states, tells me how little you understand of the subject you are lecturing about.
                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                    To science.
                    I'd say citation needed but I'd rather him not don the latex glove needed to find his source.
                    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post

                      I'd say citation needed but I'd rather him not don the latex glove needed to find his source.
                      A self-taught (and self-medicated) expert in Cultural Anthropology no doubt...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                        Ok, forgive me, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
                        Despite a complete lack of knowledge of the concept of "dual sovereignty" as it applies to the interaction between the States and federal government, you are going to lecture me on the topic.

                        So the quick and correct answer to your assertion is:
                        "No. You are sadly mistaken."

                        The EC is intended to protect the less populous states.
                        The US is 50 separate sovereign states. The original States were concerned about a loss of influence at the federal level relative to the more populous states. The original states (colonies) all voluntarily organized themselves into the US. Those States existed prior to the formation of the current federal government.

                        Each State has its own government and body of law. When the State's laws conflict with Federal law, Federal law is superior. (See the Supremacy Clause.)

                        Sorry but if the federal laws are superior to the state laws, we cannot talk about sovereignty. You can call it division of powers or any other term but as long as a state cannot volontary leave the union and doesn't have the full powers on its territory, it cannot be sovereign. Those things are mandatory to use the term "sovereign".
                        There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                          In states like California, republicans have little incentive to vote for president and a republican candidate has no incentive to even bother campaigning there.

                          Under a straight popular vote scheme, that would change. Whether it would make a significant impact on the outcome cannot be known.
                          Also, under that scheme, the small states wouldn't matter. All the campaigning would take place in the populous states. Which is precisely what the framers of our Constitution sought to avoid.

                          The fact that you misunderstood my reference to "2/3rds" of the states, tells me how little you understand of the subject you are lecturing about.
                          You should read what you write. You write that the EC system is created to protect the states and in the same time you write that in states like California, a republican will not even bother to campaign. Do you understand that those things are mutually exclusive and per consequent one of them must be wrong ?

                          In the existing conditions the campaigning takes no place in 2/3 of the states. Size don't always matters. Some big states are in balance. Under a popular vote system the campaigning would take place in every state since all voices would matter.
                          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            The question unanswered - and unasked - is what system do the Democrats want to replace the EC with? Direct popular voting seems too vulnerable to fraud, the Dems being experts at getting even the dead to vote, but it would be enormously appealing to the Dems, who favor open borders as another means of increasing the voting size of the American Welfare State. Computerized voting has been tossed around a bit, but it, too, is highly vulnerable to cheating., and gerrymandering has once again made a significant comeback.

                            Of cure, one the government's fondest wet dreams will be to offer to correct all of that by means of the "national ID chip", a concept near and dear to politicians on both sides of the fence, but very popular with Americans in general who rightly fear the possibilities of a police state.

                            Whatever system is chosen in the end, one thing about our government is crystal clear: it does not "represent" the people in any meaningful way, which is clear evidence that the voting system is broken and needs to be addressed.
                            They want the same type as for ALL other governments within the US. City, County State and Congressional.
                            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                            you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              The dems did not win the popular vote in 1992.
                              They won with less than a majority of the popular vote because Ross Perot did pretty well for a 3rd party candidate.
                              Dems won the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 as well. So what are you arguing about?
                              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                                You should read what you write. You write that the EC system is created to protect the states and in the same time you write that in states like California, a republican will not even bother to campaign. Do you understand that those things are mutually exclusive and per consequent one of them must be wrong ?

                                In the existing conditions the campaigning takes no place in 2/3 of the states. Size don't always matters. Some big states are in balance. Under a popular vote system the campaigning would take place in every state since all voices would matter.


                                No. I am not wrong.
                                The EC is part of our Constitution (Article II).
                                I used California as an example of what I am talking about.
                                My point about the Constitution and California are both correct.

                                You still don’t get the point about 2/3rds and yet you are still trying to tell me about the basis of part of our constitution.
                                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X