The Electoral College

[Bodi]

THOUGHTS?

 

[Mycroft]

THOUGHTS?

The first thought that comes to mind is...dishonest.

The second thought that comes to mind is that it is pathetic that people will watch this video and think it's honest.

The third thought that comes to mind is that Southside Tokyo should be ashamed of themselves.

I've stopped thinking about that stupid dumbass video.

 

[Bodi]

I've stopped thinking ...

That is apparent.

 

[Mycroft]

That is apparent.

LOL!!

Awww...did I burst your bubble?

Too ****ing bad. You should know better than to present stupid shit.

 

[Peter]

Why is the idea of dumping the electoral college and just having the winner declared by whoever gets the most votes a bad thing?

It works in Europe just fine.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

THOUGHTS?

We dare you.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Why is the idea of dumping the electoral college and just having the winner declared by whoever gets the most votes a bad thing?

It works in Europe just fine.

Because Republicans are no longer nationally popular and can’t compete so they have hitched their wagons to EC shenanigans to try to cement anti-majoritarian rule.

 

[it's just me]

Why is the idea of dumping the electoral college and just having the winner declared by whoever gets the most votes a bad thing?

It works in Europe just fine.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Logician Man]

No, it doesn't.

Proof?

 

[it's just me]

Proof?

How would you know if I had it? Are you aware that the U.S. has states bigger than most European countries? Want me to explain it to you?

 

[Logician Man]

How would you know if I had it? Are you aware that the U.S. has states bigger than most European countries? Want me to explain it to you?

So no proof to validate your positive claim put forth in post# 8?

 

[Dayton3]

Why is the idea of dumping the electoral college and just having the winner declared by whoever gets the most votes a bad thing?

It works in Europe just fine.

Almost no European nation has the same kind of governmental system as the U.S. Most are parliamentary democracies.

 

[wellwisher]

Why is the idea of dumping the electoral college and just having the winner declared by whoever gets the most votes a bad thing?

It works in Europe just fine.

The electoral college offers checks and balances and allows all people, from all states, to have some national input. If we got rid of the electoral college, and went by popular vote, California, Texas, New York and a few other populous states can form an alliance and take over the country, simply based on their population. Once in power they can make it possible to stay there forever by changing the rules, like the Democrats do. The rest of the states can be used for slave labor and for dumping their waste.

The electoral college prevents the large populous from hustling away the rights of the rest. The hustle is a more of a socialist wet dream, but it is a nightmare for a democracy. The electoral college allows all people from all states to have a say which is the hall mark for a national democracy. Voting is less important than having direct input. The electoral college allows for more regional input and more possible good ideas. Cheaters, bankrupt of good ideas, will try to change the rules, so cheating is made easier.

 

[mrjurrs]

The electoral college offers checks and balances and allows all people, from all states, to have some national input. If we got rid of the electoral college, and went by popular vote, California, Texas, New York and a few other populous states can form an alliance and take over the country, simply based on their population. Once in power they can make it possible to stay there forever by changing the rules, like the Democrats do. The rest of the states can be used for slave labor and for dumping their waste.

The electoral college prevents the large populous from hustling away the rights of the rest. The hustle is a more of a socialist wet dream, but it is a nightmare for a democracy. The electoral college allows all people from all states to have a say which is the hall mark for a national democracy. Voting is less important than having direct input. The electoral college allows for more regional input and more possible good ideas. Cheaters, bankrupt of good ideas, will try to change the rules, so cheating is made easier.

Can you explain why 5 million urban votes should count less than 5 million rural votes? Why SD, ND, WY and other overrepresented states should have a greater input on our elections than underrepresented states?

 

[NatMorton]

Why is the idea of dumping the electoral college and just having the winner declared by whoever gets the most votes a bad thing?

It works in Europe just fine.

Not in counties where the chief executive is the prime minister. There you need the most districts, not votes.

 

[Argent]

Let's opt for ranked choice voting and really shake things up.

 

[it's just me]

Can you explain why 5 million urban votes should count less than 5 million rural votes? Why SD, ND, WY and other overrepresented states should have a greater input on our elections than underrepresented states?

That's pretty easy, to keep the states with larger populations from becoming dictatorships. This country is a Republic, not a democracy, no matter how much you stomp your feet and claim otherwise.

 

[Helix]

Why is the idea of dumping the electoral college and just having the winner declared by whoever gets the most votes a bad thing?

It works in Europe just fine.

Because Republicans like to win with fewer votes.

 

[MamboDervish]

Why is the idea of dumping the electoral college and just having the winner declared by whoever gets the most votes a bad thing?

Because we have 50 different States.

 

[mrjurrs]

That's pretty easy, to keep the states with larger populations from becoming dictatorships. This country is a Republic, not a democracy, no matter how much you stomp your feet and claim otherwise.

How is allowing small population states dominance over large population states different? I assume you understand that the current dispersal of electoral votes is a Congressional action and not a Constitution direction?

 

[mrjurrs]

Because Republicans like to win with fewer votes.

Because Republicans can't win when it is the popular vote.

 

[mrjurrs]

Because we have 50 different States.

But it is one federal election. This is the way to fix it...

National Popular Vote

State status: AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50...

www.nationalpopularvote.com

 

[Helix]

Because Republicans can't win when it is the popular vote.

They can. Democrats sometimes run unelectable candidates that it would take a five minute zoom meeting to identify.

 

[it's just me]

How is allowing small population states dominance over large population states different? I assume you understand that the current dispersal of electoral votes is a Congressional action and not a Constitution direction?

Ever read the Federalist Papers? I mean, surely you've heard of the Constitution? If you want to ignore the law and have illegal elections just so you can say "I win" and proceed with your communist dictatorship it's not America anymore and all bets are off.

I'm tired of arguing with you guys, get a clue.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

That's pretty easy, to keep the states with larger populations from becoming dictatorships. This country is a Republic, not a democracy, no matter how much you stomp your feet and claim otherwise.

The EC isn’t what makes us a Republic, having representatives in government does that. Removing the EC would have zero effect on our democratic republic.