• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Only in america can the loser of the popular vote for president, win. Is this ok with you? What does your vote really mean?

Michael Cole said:
Nah. I'm pretty sure everyone understands that land doesn't vote.


That's the topic of discussion, yes.


What? Lol. No, what you get is the candidate with fewer votes winning the election.


You've pushed the nonsense over a cliff.

Averages out? You're not making any sense whatsoever. It's an election. The winner of an election is the one who gets the most votes, except with the outdated EC. Your "reasoning" is pathetic.
Click to expand...
Well, I am sorry you cannot understand these concepts.

Have a great day, nonetheless.
 
Hypothetical said:
Well, I am sorry you cannot understand these concepts.
Click to expand...
Your "concepts" are that the loser of an election should win because of the "population centers."

It's batshit illogical. There is no logical argument to be made. The actual reasoning behind the creation of the EC is what I already stated, and it had nothing to do with "population centers.

Your argument is nonsense, probably peddled to you by biased media.

Hypothetical said:
Have a great day, nonetheless.
Click to expand...
You too. If the tables are ever turned, I'm sure you'll be back supporting the popular vote.
 
Michael Cole said:
Your "concepts" are that the loser of an election should win because of the "population centers."

It's batshit illogical. There is no logical argument to be made. The actual reasoning behind the creation of the EC is what I already stated, and it had nothing to do with "population centers.

Your argument is nonsense, probably peddled to you by biased media.


You too. If the tables are ever turned, I'm sure you'll be back supporting the popular vote.
Click to expand...
and yet, it has worked great for 235 years.

I might or i might not, but it is a VERY rare moment if I EVER support subverting the constitution for any reason.

Let me know when you get an amendment passed ok?
 
Michael Cole said:
Your "concepts" are that the loser of an election should win because of the "population centers."
Click to expand...
the sentence doesn't make sense. If the winner wins The electoral college they won the election they didn't lose it.

Complaining about the rules on how we pick this one particular leader because you can't win without appealing to more diverse people is complaining that we aren't a dictatorship.
It's batshit illogical. There is no logical argument to be made. The actual reasoning behind the creation of the EC is what I already stated, and it had nothing to do with "population centers.
Click to expand...
it doesn't matter that's the system we have you can expect the people you want to win to work with in it or you can bitch and moan because they fail. The system is known by all parties involved. It's not flawed because some moron plays the game wrong.
Your argument is nonsense, probably peddled to you by biased media.


You too. If the tables are ever turned, I'm sure you'll be back supporting the popular vote.
Click to expand...
the tables were turned the last election. Joe Biden won by the slimmest of margins when we take into account how presidents are actually elected.

But people talk about how many more popular votes he got as if that matters. He barely squeaked by people using the popular vote are using that to say that he just absolutely dominated Donald Trump. And that's not the case.

If you want us to operate on popular vote I'm into the Constitution. If you can't do that quit whining.
 
CLAX1911 said:
the sentence doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
Now you're catching on. (y)

Enjoy your afternoon.
CLAX1911 said:
If the winner wins The electoral college they won the election they didn't lose it.

Complaining about the rules on how we pick this one particular leader because you can't win without appealing to more diverse people is complaining that we aren't a dictatorship.
it doesn't matter that's the system we have you can expect the people you want to win to work with in it or you can bitch and moan because they fail. The system is known by all parties involved. It's not flawed because some moron plays the game wrong.
the tables were turned the last election. Joe Biden won by the slimmest of margins when we take into account how presidents are actually elected.

But people talk about how many more popular votes he got as if that matters. He barely squeaked by people using the popular vote are using that to say that he just absolutely dominated Donald Trump. And that's not the case.

If you want us to operate on popular vote I'm into the Constitution. If you can't do that quit whining.
Click to expand...
 
Hypothetical said:
and yet, it has worked great for 235 years.
Click to expand...
in all fairness though the number of electors were limited to 435 in 1929 by the Permanent Apportionment Act. Between 1913 and 1923 (these dates are important because they were census years) 22 states were added that needed representation. The founders set up the house to grow with the population.
I might or i might not, but it is a VERY rare moment if I EVER support subverting the constitution for any reason.
Click to expand...
I would argue the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 subverted the Constitution as well as in years leading up to that trying to hold at the arbitrary number at 435 reps.

Why this is important is because the representatives are electors.
Let me know when you get an amendment passed ok?
Click to expand...
You don't have to pass any amendment you just have to get the house to repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 which they will never do because it dilutes their power.
 
CLAX1911 said:
that's because the news media brainwashed you it was a pretty mild protest.
no it wasn't like watching Rodney King it was like watching any other protest.
and the problem that you have with America today is the news media isn't effective at brainwashing all of us. Just you. I'm slightly conservative yeah I'm not a wacko far leftist that believes that January 6th was some sort of insurrection.

There's a vast canyon of difference between wacko far left as and normal human being. I'm sorry you don't realize where you sit on the spectrum probably because the media has brainwashed you.
Click to expand...
Do people normally die in mild protests in your neck of the woods? They don't in mine.
 
CLAX1911 said:
States choose the president.
Click to expand...
Do states really choose the president?? From Michigan in 2016, Trump received 47.5% of the vote from that state. However, Trump received 100% of the electoral votes from Michigan even though 52.5% of the people from that state didn't vote for Trump.
 
Brack said:
Do states really choose the president?? From Michigan in 2016, Trump received 47.5% of the vote from that state. However, Trump received 100% of the electoral votes from Michigan even though 52.5% of the people from that state didn't vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
Yes they do if you have a problem with how electors are distributed take a look at Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. That's probably why your vote doesn't really reflect who the state chose.

But Representatives probably don't want to dilute their power.
 
Brack said:
Do states really choose the president?? From Michigan in 2016, Trump received 47.5% of the vote from that state. However, Trump received 100% of the electoral votes from Michigan even though 52.5% of the people from that state didn't vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
In the 2016 elections, Mr. Trump received more than 50% of the popular vote in 26 states, 26 is more than 50% of 50 - right?

In the 2020 elections, Mr. Trump received more than 50% of the popular vote in 27 states, 27 is even more more than 50% of 50 - right?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
In the 2016 elections, Mr. Trump received more than 50% of the popular vote in 26 states, 26 is more than 50% of 50 - right?

In the 2020 elections, Mr. Trump received more than 50% of the popular vote in 27 states, 27 is even more more than 50% of 50 - right?
Click to expand...

No. In the 2020 Presidential election, Trump won 25 states while getting over 50% of the vote in 24 of the 25 states that he won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom