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.
...the argument about how the popular vote would hand too much control to big cities?
Of course they would, and they should. That's where the people are. That's what matters.
I think the electoral college is ridiculous. Look at 1980. If you go by the EC, it looks like 90% of the country was like "**** Carter", but that's not the case. 40% of the country wanted him as their President. It's such a misrepresentation of the what the actual voters wanted.
Lets say for some reason, like 4/5ths of the country people suddenly moved to two cities. It won’t happen, I know. But lets just say they did. It’d be ******* ridiculous to say that those two countries shouldn’t dictate who is elected President. How many people in this country wanted one person to lead it IS what should matter, and the majority of the country chose Clinton. That's what makes all this "TEH MANDATE OVERWHELMING REJECTION OF DA LEFT" so insane. Trump lost the ACTUAL vote by about the same margin that Kerry did in 2004. A win by 1 vote wouldn't be enough to imply that someone has a political mandate. Let alone a 3 million vote loss...
Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-19-2016 at 06:41 PM..
Reason: bypassing the profanity filter
...the argument about how the popular vote would hand too much control to big cities?
Of course they would, and they should. That's where the people are. That's what matters.
I think the electoral college is ridiculous. Look at 1980. If you go by the EC, it looks like 90% of the country was like "**** Carter", but that's not the case. 40% of the country wanted him as their President. It's such a misrepresentation of the what the actual voters wanted.
Lets say for some reason, like 4/5ths of the country people suddenly moved to two cities. It won’t happen, I know. But lets just say they did. It’d be ******* ridiculous to say that those two countries shouldn’t dictate who is elected President. How many people in this country wanted one person to lead it IS what should matter, and the majority of the country chose Clinton. That's what makes all this "TEH MANDATE OVERWHELMING REJECTION OF DA LEFT" so insane. Trump lost the ACTUAL vote by about the same margin that Kerry did in 2004. A win by 1 vote wouldn't be enough to imply that someone has a political mandate. Let alone a 3 million vote loss...
Hate the constitution much?
Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-19-2016 at 06:42 PM..
Reason: edited quoted post
...the argument about how the popular vote would hand too much control to big cities?
Of course they would, and they should. That's where the people are. That's what matters.
No that isn't all that matters. Why the should anyone in California have a say in what happens in Wyoming, much less complete control simply because more people live in one place 2,000 miles away? They shouldn't. Some people just can't get it through their heads that the US is not a democracy. Majority rule IS NOT how the US works or was ever intended to work.
I suppose you think there shouldn't be 2 Senators from each state either.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-19-2016 at 06:42 PM..
Reason: edited out profanity
...the argument about how the popular vote would hand too much control to big cities?
Of course they would, and they should. That's where the people are. That's what matters.
I think the electoral college is ridiculous. Look at 1980. If you go by the EC, it looks like 90% of the country was like "**** Carter", but that's not the case. 40% of the country wanted him as their President. It's such a misrepresentation of the what the actual voters wanted.
Lets say for some reason, like 4/5ths of the country people suddenly moved to two cities. It won’t happen, I know. But lets just say they did. It’d be ******* ridiculous to say that those two countries shouldn’t dictate who is elected President. How many people in this country wanted one person to lead it IS what should matter, and the majority of the country chose Clinton. That's what makes all this "TEH MANDATE OVERWHELMING REJECTION OF DA LEFT" so insane. Trump lost the ACTUAL vote by about the same margin that Kerry did in 2004. A win by 1 vote wouldn't be enough to imply that someone has a political mandate. Let alone a 3 million vote loss...
Well, get to work on that constitutional amendment.
But just like the states elected Trump, the states will reject your amendment.
Too bad for some of you...we are the United States of America.
(Take a civics class.)
Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-19-2016 at 06:43 PM..
Reason: edited quoted post
What I don't get is how supposedly Russia influenced the election yet Hillary won the popular vote. I saw a post where someone said Russia specifically targeted key electoral states LOL.
...the argument about how the popular vote would hand too much control to big cities?
Of course they would, and they should. That's where the people are. That's what matters.
I think the electoral college is ridiculous. Look at 1980. If you go by the EC, it looks like 90% of the country was like "**** Carter", but that's not the case. 40% of the country wanted him as their President. It's such a misrepresentation of the what the actual voters wanted.
Lets say for some reason, like 4/5ths of the country people suddenly moved to two cities. It won’t happen, I know. But lets just say they did. It’d be ******* ridiculous to say that those two countries shouldn’t dictate who is elected President. How many people in this country wanted one person to lead it IS what should matter, and the majority of the country chose Clinton. That's what makes all this "TEH MANDATE OVERWHELMING REJECTION OF DA LEFT" so insane. Trump lost the ACTUAL vote by about the same margin that Kerry did in 2004. A win by 1 vote wouldn't be enough to imply that someone has a political mandate. Let alone a 3 million vote loss...
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Hate actual Democracy much?
Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Great for the wolves, not so great for the sheep. We live in a republic, where we elect and/or appoint people to represent us. The electoral college is part of that "appoint" thing.
Just out of curiosity, if the shoe were on the other foot and Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, would you still be throwing a fit about it? I kind of doubt that you would - nor would any of the rest who are yelling for the death of the electoral college.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-19-2016 at 06:43 PM..
Reason: edited quoted post
Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Great for the wolves, not so great for the sheep. We live in a republic, where we elect and/or appoint people to represent us. The electoral college is part of that "appoint" thing.
Just out of curiosity, if the shoe were on the other foot and Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, would you still be throwing a fit about it? I kind of doubt that you would - nor would any of the rest who are yelling for the death of the electoral college.
Remember when the leftist were all gleeful that Trump had "no path to 270"? Weeks before the election were cleches like "ground game, she's got it" and all that jazz about Trump must accept the results! Now that Trump won the EC in a landslide, all of a sudden the EC isn't fair.
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.
