Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you hypocrite liberals had no problem with the electoral college when you thought you were going to win. You didn't mind when it put the sex predator Clinton in the WH with 43% of the popular vote. You had no problem with it when you thought Hillary was going to win "No path to 270" was the dem rallying cry for months, until you lost.
Liberal facts are like their ethics, flexible.
The OP posted about DEMOCRATS wanting to abolish the electoral college. My statement was in response to the hypocrisy of the right. Your response was another spin and deflection.
No respect for our precious founding fathers and constitution.
Of course she wants to do away with it. She is extremely arrogant, socialist, NY liberal who wants massive tax increases.
Her goal is to have Denmark or Sweden level of taxation with Brazil or Venezuela quality services.
Glad that as long as Republicans have the Midwest, South, Florida and Texas that Socialist high-tax loving California and New York don't matter.
The Democrats will likely win the popular vote from here on out, but luckily that doesn't matter as only the electoral vote matters and that is likely to stay Republican.
The fact of the matter is that the Midwest and South are likely to become one big block of enough electoral votes for Republicans to win electoral vote landslides.
Republicans should do all they can to make the Midwest and South, so that Democratic votes on the coasts are worthless votes in a presidential election.
They are wasting their time. The reasons are obvious to anyone with an IQ above...let's say 100.
If Hillary had won the Electoral Vote, but not the Popular Vote the Left (Democrats) would be saying how great our Electoral College system is, and how it is visionary. Such transparent idiots.
If Hillary had won the Electoral Vote, but not the Popular Vote the Left (Democrats) would be saying how great our Electoral College system is, and how it is visionary. Such transparent idiots.
Then the Trump and the Trumplings are equally such transparent idiots for doing the same when it happens in their favor.
The Electoral College was a bad idea from the beginning. Our "precious" founding fathers weren't always so smart. However, it will never be abolished, because the states that benefit from it outnumber the states that are disadvantaged by it. It takes 3/4 of the states to change the constitution.
Actually there is a way around this that lowers the requirements slightly. Individual states decide how their Electoral College votes are cast, if states with a total of 270 Electoral college votes formed a pact to cast those votes based on the popular vote changing the Constitution becomes moot point.
Democrats are just sore losers. Always wanting to change the rules in their favor e.g. nuclear option, electoral college, etc
Let's move those goal posts just a few more yards, per one of the new D spokesmen...
Quote:
Michael Avenatti, the attorney for adult-film star Stormy Daniels, on Wednesday called for the Supreme Court to add two seats to the bench, saying that the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate must commit to this position during the campaign.
I think that the EC was necessary once-upon-a-time when communication across an entire country was slow and impractical.
I understand the concept, but I don't agree with the idea that a candidate with millions more votes overall should lose an election. But it's the winner-take-all system (used in all but 2 states) that disenfranchises voters from both sides and what I think should be modified, if anything. Over 1 million votes for DT in Massachusetts were for nothing, like over 3 Million votes for HC in Texas. Surely, a delivery of EC votes based on a percentage of the popular vote would be more balanced. This decision is up to the states, as it isn't outlined in the Constitution how the delegates decide their votes, just that they must have a process in place. It's not likely that heavy blue states would be willing to give up any of their votes, and vice-versa for heavy red states. But if a couple of swing states took the initiative to change the way they delegate, it could make a decent difference in either direction.
Hamilton wrote that the Constitution (and thus, the EC) was designed so that "the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" and "to preserve the sense of the people." I fail to see how the sense of the people is preserved when the presidency is awarded to the candidate with less votes overall.
Last edited by lunalvr; 10-08-2018 at 10:21 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
