Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    Dems won the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 as well. So what are you arguing about?
    Iím arguing about exactly what I said. Clinton did not win the majority in 1992. He won a plurality.
    It is ultimately a minor point and yet people are upset by it.
    Why are you arguing about 2000 and 2016?
    I never said anything about either.
    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


    • #77
      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



      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 donít get the point about 2/3rds and yet you are still trying to tell me about the basis of part of our constitution.
      You seem to don't get the point about 2/3 despite the map I posted.
      There can be plenty of things in constitution. The reality is different. The definition of English word "sovereignty" is very clear and it doesn't fit with existing reality.
      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Emtos View Post

        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".


        Well, at least youíve demonstrated your grasp of a subject you know nothing about.
        I have identified the 2 concepts.
        1) Dual sovereignty, and
        2) The Supremacy clause.

        Rather than look at either one, you continue arguing based on a lack of information rather than any understanding.
        Sorry, but I donít make this stuff up.
        Iím just telling you how our laws work.
        And despite the fact that you know nothing of how our laws work and will not educate yourself of any of the concepts that I have told you about, you still believe you are right and Iím making crap up.
        Have a nice day.

        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


        • #79
          I'm just telling you that words have a clear definition.
          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

          Comment


          • #80
            Dems want to rule by a mobocracy of illegal votes. No thank you.

            The EC will not be abolished.

            {}

            "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

            Comment


            • #81
              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.)

              To be precise, the States organised themselves Into the United States of America under a Federal constitution- reluctantly, as it became clear that the Articles of confederation were a dozen years failed experiment.

              Hoeve, the electoral college is a necessary, perhaps changed form the current way of doing business.

              Duty calls. More later.

              Pls read Stormbird, by Conn Iggulden, if possible, everybody. is this \Winter of Your discontent/

              Ok an electoral college is useful to balance out resource and agrarian regions from a regional dense 'tyranny.' Canada is a salient example of the central Laurentian triangle, and the Golden Horseshoe, having too much control over the hinterlands- both in Ontario and Quebec- and the Western provinces. the NEP was an example of the tyranny of the Centre- and a really unfortunate piece of legislation.

              BUT the outcome of the EC ahs to broadly reflect the nation.
              Last edited by marktwain; 14 Jan 19, 21:24.
              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                Iím arguing about exactly what I said. Clinton did not win the majority in 1992. He won a plurality.
                It is ultimately a minor point and yet people are upset by it.
                Why are you arguing about 2000 and 2016?
                I never said anything about either.
                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

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

                youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                Comment


                • #83
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation !!!!

                  of course, if you go back to the
                  articles of confederation, The Province of Quebec gets an automatic admittance to statehood.... go for it....
                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                    Clinton won with a plurality. Not a majority.

                    Yes, the changes will impact both sides.
                    But it will change the way people vote.
                    Trump won because he ran his campaign in a way that was consistent with the existing law. Hillary didnít.

                    It won;t happen though because such a change requires that 2/3s of the States be willing to make themselves subservient to California and New York. Few States are going to support a Constitutional amendment that tends to weaken their influence.
                    Democrats are screwed by Article V of the Constitution.

                    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
                    Not only would the Democrats have to get 38 states to vote for a change in the Constitution, even just one state could argue that by doing away with the EC it would lose its "equal suffrage in the Senate" as a result, thus nullifying any attempt to change the EC. Certainly it would provide for a Constitutional crisis unseen in this country since the Civil War.

                    I do think it is time for the Senate to drop the filibuster. It is so abused now that its original intention has been completely eroded away.

                    Tuebor

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College

                      I wish them, (as the Japanese would say) Good Ruck!
                      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Tuebor View Post

                        Democrats are screwed by Article V of the Constitution.



                        Not only would the Democrats have to get 38 states to vote for a change in the Constitution, even just one state could argue that by doing away with the EC it would lose its "equal suffrage in the Senate" as a result, thus nullifying any attempt to change the EC. Certainly it would provide for a Constitutional crisis unseen in this country since the Civil War.

                        I do think it is time for the Senate to drop the filibuster. It is so abused now that its original intention has been completely eroded away.

                        Tuebor
                        If a State only has a population of 100,000 it still get's the same two Senators. House members are determined by popular vote with in the state. EC has nothing to do with it.

                        https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...ege/about.html
                        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

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

                        youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                          Good, it's the only way republicans can win. They surely can't win by American vote totals. So they cheat.
                          1 vote should equal 1 vote.
                          That's half the story. With Democrats, one person can equal 6 votes.

                           
                          "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                          "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                            I'm just telling you that words have a clear definition.
                            Words as : people's democracy

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              In 49 of 58 elections the number of PV is known , and in 19 cases a potus was elected who had less than 50 % of the PV and mostly the losers accepted their defeat, till Hillary lost 2 years ago and the Democrats said : we lost,thus one must change the system .
                              The GOP did not demand an other system when the following Democrats were elected with less than 50% of the PV .
                              1960 : JFK 49,72 %
                              1948 : Truman : 49,55
                              1916 : Wilson : 49,24
                              1996 : Clinton : 49,23
                              1884 : Cleveland : 48,85
                              1892 : Cleveland : 46,02
                              1856 : Buchanan :45,29
                              1992 : Clinton : 42,01
                              1912 : Wilson : 41,84
                              9 Democrats and 6 Republicans became potus with less than 50 % of the PV .
                              And, if one wants to change the presidential election system, what about congressional elections,where the same system is used ?There also parties got the House majority with less PV than the opponents .

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                                Words as : people's democracy
                                This is exactly what existed.
                                There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X