I thought you were for allowing states to decide how they allocate their votes? Did that change?
Dems intro bill to eliminate electoral college
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
The hard left states run by zealot Democrats can do whatever they want. But this is clearly being organized by the DNC given the lobbying going on by these states to bully other states into signing on.
That's what i was thinking you meant. So are you cool with the idea of texas and Florida having their own compact?
My preference is that a popular vote for a federal possition that governs every American similar to a senator in statewide elections.
In the absence of popular vote I prefer any option that exists legally within our current system that gets us closest to that result.
So you're saying that what the states are doing and what the state's have decided on how they want to elect a president isn't a republic because you don't like it.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Well in my entire life I've lived through 1 conservative popular vote winner 15 years ago and yet I have had the benefit of spending half of my life with a conservative president. So yeah the votes in flyover states seem to be worth significant more than in the states where GDP is produced.
Oh ok. Well I guess you could point me to the 2 conservative popular vote wins in my lifetime. Thanks.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote.
nothing is happening to the electoral college. i could possibly see a few more states going with the "proportinal representation" model over the "winner-take-all" model in the future though, but not a lot more.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote.
nothing is happening to the electoral college. i could possibly see a few more states going with the "proportinal representation" model over the "winner-take-all" model in the future though, but not a lot more.
Then I guess we need to learn how to count votes. Much prefer it over winner take all
It requires a Constitutional Amendment at the federal level to disband or change the representation. That said, states are allowed to designated how their Electors vote.
E.g., individual states can pass a law that electors have to follow the national, popular vote.
But the problem for Democrats is that most states are Republican. Hence why they fail basic civics and history, and why the republic itself will likely fail, if California always elects the President. Other states will not tolerate it.
Because that's what will always happen without the Electoral College. Look it up, basic statistics at work.
The purpose of a republic is so the individual members of the republic have a say. If we remove the Electoral College, only California has a say. One must remove a half-dozen of the other, large states (who are far more balanced), or dozen of other states, before it changes the other way.
But I cannot seem to explain that to 'Progressives' these days, who think it's about 'bow to our will.' No, they will 'escape your will' in an exodus. Seriously, we could be talking about another revolution.
E.g., individual states can pass a law that electors have to follow the national, popular vote.
But the problem for Democrats is that most states are Republican. Hence why they fail basic civics and history, and why the republic itself will likely fail, if California always elects the President. Other states will not tolerate it.
Because that's what will always happen without the Electoral College. Look it up, basic statistics at work.
The purpose of a republic is so the individual members of the republic have a say. If we remove the Electoral College, only California has a say. One must remove a half-dozen of the other, large states (who are far more balanced), or dozen of other states, before it changes the other way.
But I cannot seem to explain that to 'Progressives' these days, who think it's about 'bow to our will.' No, they will 'escape your will' in an exodus. Seriously, we could be talking about another revolution.
Last edited:
“Our candidate chose to believe that middle America doesn’t exist and lost, so let’s destroy our entire system for choosing Presidents”
#LiberalLogic2019
#LiberalLogic2019
This is still the absolutely most oblivious argument I continue to hear. Why?
The opposing argument, as always, is that California is a single state that enacts more will on the entire Republic than all those other states ... combined, and even a half dozen of the largest other states left.
So ... which is worse?
A whole bunch of states that are more balanced that sway, collectively, the vote?
Or one, single state that trumps 40% of the country, and massively?
Because when you answer it, the obviousness of the truth becomes readily apparent. Remove the Electoral College, let alone change the Senate's make-up (the whole reason for the Senate v. House), and suddenly you're going to see states leave the union.
I'm not kidding, we'll have another revolution.
I cannot understand how people are failing this elementary civics lesson. And people like yourself, making such statements about 'flyover territory,' are literally looking like the biggest hypocrites.
You're literally arguing that California's viewpoint is more important than 40% of the country. It's that level of arrogance ... that level of insensitivity and 'you don't matter,' that causes candidates like Trump to rise.
It's complete discrimination, and I still don't understand how people don't see that ... which is why such people are not 'enlightened' in my book.
California's viewpoint? A state is just a imaginary line drawn on a map you're taking the people out of the equation to prove a point but these people have opinions on how they be governed and that's democracy. Except their opinions don't matter quite as much.
Color me shocked the extremist who wants open borders has taken this viewpoint
No, look at the election numbers! Go back many elections! Now start removing the biggest states ... it's all there.
This is what I don't get. People constantly complain about 'flyover territory,' a lot of states with a lot of people, but then ignore a single state, California, has more influence than the next half-dozen biggest states ... combined.
Without the Electoral College, whomever California votes ... wins. It's been that way for a long time. I cannot make this up.
It's sad those complaining about a bunch of states, while they like a single state that could control the election, period. That's the whole reason the Electoral College exists ... so a subset of states -- or now in the case of California, a single state -- cannot control the election.
If a subset -- let alone one -- does, then you're looking at the end of the union. Pure and simple.
Progressives are also talking about doing away with the Senate, or changing it to be like the House. They literally have chucked all American civics, and even Liberals are questioning them ... openly ... for good reason.
It's funny how the left complains about the right 'gerrymanding,' and they're correct, it's wrong, and are now just using a different argument to get the same result. Simple Democracies fail for a reason ...
It's called one subset or even just one, single entity, of the people, start controlling everything.
Last edited:
Yeah you'd hate for all those human beings in California to have their votes count. Better to just give extra voting power to the flyover states.
This is why liberals are so worried about the census and immigration. How many extra housemembers do you think California has due to illegal immigrants being counted in the census roles?
It was won illegally. I think you forgot this. Collusion........russian interference has already been proven and established. Frump is in the white house illegally
These people are so butthurt that 80% of LA, NYC, and San Fran voting for their candidate doesn't assure them a national victory.
The GOP should actually play this up. By the Democrats wanting to do away with the Electoral College, it's basically their way of again trying to crap on middle America and remove any influence they have in elections.
Huh? Nothing has been 'proven.' Sorry, but that's the US media narrative.
All the special investigation has proven to this point is that select lawyers that were associated with Trump represented Moscow interests in Kiev. That also applies to Democrats as well, in private litigation. E.g., the Podesta Group was far more involved than even Manafort, and that's why the Russians hacked his account before he even became Hillary's campaign manager.
Sorry, but no. If we want to start there, then we'll need to go through everything the Russians did to help Obama as well. Just because a special counsel hasn't been investigated, doesn't mean it's not out there, and already in private litigation as well.
You're being fed an US media narration, ignoring the full spectrum of Russian influence -- or US influence for that matter. Kiev had always been a basket of US lawyers representing Moscow interests, both sides.
Also ... the Russians never changed any votes in all cases. If we blamed elections on foreign influence, then Obama was never legitimately elected either. Heck, the US constantly interferes in other elections too. This is why I cannot believe the full hypocrisy on this.
Especially since I've been reading the public Czech BIS reports since the Georgian War. That was the 'wake up call,' but people were too busy blaming W. for things, all well funded by Russian influence.
So ... for some reason, no Democrats cared about the Russians helping them, and the US media was paid to push a Russian agenda, while clearly interfering with the W. administration through direct payments to the US media, and the 2008 election when Obama was the non-interference candidate.
Or when Romney pointed out the problem with Democratic relationships with Moscow interests in Kiev in 2012 ... of all parties, and why they were the #1 strategic threat for Europe.
No ... Democrats only cared when Kiev went through the complete EU-EEC-EU flip, people got arrested, and then war finally broke out, and the Democratic party was no longer 'friends' with the Russians ... especially as a non-interference candidate took over the Republican primary.
Because that's really what this is about. The Democratic party being the biggest hypocrites of all in this case. Nothing has stuck at all ... at all.
But keep up the "Our Democracy has been hacked" argument.
All I hear is, "We're too weak willed to withstand right-wing fake news."
Here's a reality ... it's all parties.
Sorry, Democrats have been working with the Russians since the Georgian War, and only stopped with the Ukranian War, when Obama changed policy 180 degrees. It was not shocking when the Russians switched to supporting Trump ... the non-interference candidate ... over the objections of the Republican establishment no less.
American non-interference is a popular American viewpoint right now. Trump won't be the last candidate the Russians will like for that reason. It was just Obama before that. I'll never forget it when Obama got caught on-mic admitting what we all knew ... Obama said one thing about NATO, but did another.
But for some reason, Trump being honest and open about it, saying the same things Obama did, is wrong?
Last edited:
We Proud Democrats will soon introduce a bill that will void votes by you people all together...
The following rules will apply:
If you own a gun
If you are White
If you are Christian
If you have ever served in the Military
If you have ever stood for the Flag
If you have every voted for a republican
All of your votes will be counted as illegal and then trashed
Constitutional amendments are all that stand between the Democrats and total dictatorial power. A few well constructed Constitutional Amendments could solve that problem. The Dems are just crazy enough to try and send a group of "undocumented immigrants"
into the Senate and then demand that they be allowed to vote and have their votes counted.
It's typical leftist/socialist mentality to embrace the idea of allowing merely two coastal states control the destinies of all fifty states. Only leftists/socialists (or just plain damn fools) vote for leftist/socialist politicians. PS - Liberalism is a mental disorder, Progressivism is regressivism and Leftism is Communism (i.e., Socialism, Marxism, Nazism, Totalitarianism, Despotism, Authoritarianism, etc).
The following rules will apply:
If you own a gun
If you are White
If you are Christian
If you have ever served in the Military
If you have ever stood for the Flag
If you have every voted for a republican
All of your votes will be counted as illegal and then trashed
Constitutional amendments are all that stand between the Democrats and total dictatorial power. A few well constructed Constitutional Amendments could solve that problem. The Dems are just crazy enough to try and send a group of "undocumented immigrants"
into the Senate and then demand that they be allowed to vote and have their votes counted.
It's typical leftist/socialist mentality to embrace the idea of allowing merely two coastal states control the destinies of all fifty states. Only leftists/socialists (or just plain damn fools) vote for leftist/socialist politicians. PS - Liberalism is a mental disorder, Progressivism is regressivism and Leftism is Communism (i.e., Socialism, Marxism, Nazism, Totalitarianism, Despotism, Authoritarianism, etc).
Latest posts
-
Offseason fodder: P4 non-conference game most interested- Latest: UCF_SystemsEng
-
-
-
