Beto O’Rourke: ‘A Lot of Wisdom’ in Abolishing Electoral College

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: neo96

I'm not on board with this.

I hope these two don't win the nomination. Or anyone calling for this.

I hope one of these moronic ultra libs do win the nomination, as it almost assures Trump's second term.

My belief is that, inorder to win the Dem nomination, any candidate will have to be so far left, they won't be able to move far enough towards center to win in the general.

Fingers crossed.

And if they do try to move closer to the middle after winning then they'll lose the support of those who bullied them into moving farther left. Remember when the left told us the right was splitting and going against each other after Trump won the election? Just one more thing happening to the left that they claim is happening to the right.

a reply to: LordAhriman

Yeah illegal immigrants,dead people, and rigged machines.

BHO wasn't even put on the ballot legally in Indiana.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: neo96

S & F as it isn't really a topic i know much about, so all new knowledge is a plus.

However, as an outsider, could you explain why you think this is such a bad thing? As an outsider, the Electoral Colleges do seem rather unfair (in their weighting, etc).

Like i say, it is one aspect of your political system that i don't know beyond the very basics. I do seem to recall Republicans saying they were unfair in the past (but possibly that is just old age providing false memories!).

Because their purpose for this is saying that they don't have a voice when the largest state in the Union can pour over 7,300,000 votes to a candidate and that candidate still doesn't win. They say it means they don't have a voice and that's the biggest gripe so they want to silence the voice of about 25 to 30 other states in order to have theirs even though they get more electoral votes than any other state. Does that seem fair to you?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Ahabstar

That's where I am, personally.

Along with "outright ignore any and all gun laws at your own discretion"

They are simply unenforceable. But any attempts to disarm Patriots should be met with the most severe consequences, up to and including regime change.

There is no action too extreme for preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution - including 2A, and including Article 4 Section 4 (which makes lesser systems of tyranny, such as socialism, patently illegal under the Constitutional order)

If Patriots play our cards right....

We're ready when the time comes. The only question is who all is with us.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Im not gonna lie, this scares the absolute crap out of me.

TPTB are desperate because they see their long term plans evaporating and are just going all out.

I genuinely believe Americans need forget feelings and nonsense, think logically and choose a side.

Do they really want what the Democrats are offering? Not within generations but potentially within 1 year, if they had their way the millions upon millions of illegal immigrants who are in the country will be deciding your president.

What they are suggesting goes against everything your country was built on, they are traitors plain and simple.
If you cant support Trump at least dont support those who would change your democracy to get into power

Absolutely. The time will come where all of those who let this pass, IF it were ever to pass, end up turning on it when something they find unconstitutional is passed against them by the same people. They're simple pawns in this game and too ignorant to see the big picture.

Win by any means....

I would bet a month's pay that if the dems didn't pull the popular vote this last election they would not have said a single thing about the electoral college. What Beto and others are suggesting is to abolish the states and become a full democracy, no longer 50 states formed into a union. They are also pushing to have representatives exceeding the 435 we now have, and once again it would make the Senate moot in their voting powers as shear numbers of house votes would over come the 2 per state senate vote.

Win by any means is just that, any small advantage they will cling to, and if that small advantage is CA's huge population and very liberal views then screw the other 49 states, or better yet just make all America CA... I'm sure most would love that...lol

a reply to: LordAhriman

Thanks for demonstrating my point.
As long as you win it is not an issue.
lol

a reply to: LordAhriman

He may have won the popular vote, but where were those votes concentrated?

In 2012 BHO won the election both in the EC and by popular vote. He had 332 electoral votes and ~5 million more individual votes but if you look at the electoral map by county (a much more granular look at the voting areas) you can see some remarkable changes in where the votes actually came from.

2012 United States Presedential Election

And here is a link directly to the "by county" map:
upload.wikimedia.org...

the Democrats are scheming a trap...get wised up

this graphic shows voter turnout by State 2016


this graphic shows the ElectoralCollege vote 2016


this graphic shows the Dominant Party, area votes 2016



If/When the Electoral College Vote (graph #2) is eliminated, then the 'popular vote' that is now & surly will be Augmented even more by the Democrats' non-citizen voters... a Quasi-fictional block of votes generated by Democrat 'Vote Nurseries' hidden in the 30-50 or so Really Big Metro Areas that are firmly in Democrat Control -> Re: graph #3

in any event, the ultimate goal will be more population controls...Both to ensure fair vote counting of the credentialed ballots And the discarding of Party Generated Fake Ballots which has undoubtedly gone on in the 2008/2012/2016 presidential elections.......

the Democrat strategy is to have 30 to 50 metro areas of 'Potential' ballot fraud as being too large a number to certify as 'Clean' or 'Valid' poll results in the rush-to-have-a-winner announced on TV the night of the Elections....

In closing I leave you with this meme: Popular Vote is Poop-you-Liar


Just Can't Win

I guess a dbl entry happened.... it was the program, I swear

have a good day

originally posted by: rickymouse
Yeah, a few big cities, cities that do not grow or process the foods, will be enslaving all the people who do that kind of stuff. They will control the people who work for a living processing fuels for their vehicles and to heat their homes.

Beto seems to be a moron, supporting the entitled. You do not have to be rich to be entitled. Everyone should be forced to go on a farm for a week when they go to school, they will appreciate the food on their tables more and maybe forty percent of the food in this country would not be wasted after that.

???

Many farms use robots and automated machines to harvest now. Pretty soon they all will. Welcome to the future man, country living is a thing of the past, get with the times.

originally posted by: neo96
There they go again. Proving that this nation was truly created by geniuses only to be ran by idiots. There is a lot of 'wisdom' in mob rule. Of course O' Dirt Eater isn't alone. Harris,Warr en,Cohen all agree with this stupidity.

Tuesday on MSNBC, Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke was asked about his rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) call to abolishing the Electoral College for presidential elections in favor of a national popular vote.

Yay mob rule!

By the power of 'Regenerative' Dirt.

You will comply.

Can't win the legal way.

Change the rules.

Yeah...

It sure would suck to have the candidate who gets the most votes NOT win the election...

I dont understand the GOP and conservatives fear of ending the EC. Thats a lie.. it would be the end of the GOP and conservatives from ever winning the presidency... but outside of that, it isnt "MOB RULE" and here is why...

The office of the President is the head of only 1 branch, of the 3 in our existing government. The president represents the country as a WHOLE, not individual regions/states/counties. Because of this.. it would make sense to use a popular vote for the office of the president because if he/she is to represent the whole country, how is it valid if more than half the country vote against him and he/she still wins?

If a president wins the EC but loses the popular vote, they are not a president of the people, they are a president of the EC. They are essentially a president of LAND. They are a president of LAND because in the EC a voter in Montana has more individual power and sway than a voter in California, because the sparse vacant land of Montana provides that voter with EC votes that isnt representative of its population, or population density (which takes land into account. The EC gives RURAL voters more power. This becomes a bigger problem when.. less and less people live in rural areas and more and more move to big cities. Cities become hostage to rural land.. which makes no sense because they have the PEOPLE.

The argument of "Mob Rule" isnt valid...

Why?

Because you still get to vote on your Governor, your State Senators, and your Congressmen/women. You can fill them with conservative/GOP reps if you want. But if the majority of the country is Democrat, doesnt it make sense for the president to represent that?

The electoral college does not makes sense any more and the only reason republicans are super desperate to keep it because they would rarely win elections with the popular vote. It's dumb. The electoral college assures that people's votes do not count unless they are in swing states. If you live in a blue/red state, you might as well not bother voting. It's no surprise that half the country doesn't vote. A popular vote for president of the entire country makes sense to count every individual vote as an individual vote, not to water it down based on the size of the land mass in a state. That way people actually have the power instead of land mass. I can't believe anybody would actually support keeping the electoral college. It is the single biggest problem with our election system.

LMAO at comparing that to mob rule. It only applies to electing 2 people. What a joke. It doesn't suddenly turn policy making into mob rule. Slippery slope fallacy as always. Conservatives live off that fallacy.

a reply to: Barcs


People claims that the EC is an unfair advantage for republicans are delusional...


Even in the EC the deck is slanted in favor of the people that promise everything for free in the high population density areas... The only reason trump won was the Hillary campaign was one of the worst run in my life time.


Lastly you claim its not fair and people in high density population areas votes aren't counted, or don't count... yet go straight democratic vote and every body that doesn't live in those areas will never have their vote count, how is that fair?

The EC is still working as intended, if Hillary runs a decent campaign she wins in a walk, if you cant comprehend that I dont know what to tell you.

Edit: As far as Beto... just another clown running for the fringe to line his pockets.

And yet it's not republicans trying to get rid of it.

Those people that are?

Are the desperate ones.

When it comes to picking the president and vice president?

The sheer amount of power they have.

Shouldn't be relegated to dumb snips,

And like it or not.

The majority of Americans are dumb snips.

originally posted by: neo96

Ummm...first it was crow...then it was dirt...one wonders what he’ll shove next into that skate boarding auditory orifice...

Perhaps some...*snip*...

Except...no doubt he’ll just be shove-ling that...out...


Now...that thar’s funny...





YouSir

a reply to: Lucidparadox

You don't get that since the 1700's, the normal citizens of this country haven't wanted the biggest state(s) deciding the election for everybody? Without CA, Trump wins the popular vote in 49 states. What kind of sense would it make to let CA be the deciding factor in our elections? That's the entire purpose behind the electoral vote and why the founding fathers wrote it in. That was back when a 13 year old boy had more backbone and less fear than a 40 year old man today.

Nationwide "Popular" Vote makes it easier for Democrats to steal elections.

They can pad votes in select areas and it will affect the whole Country 😎

Just like in 2016 but they failed anyway 😎

originally posted by: Barcs
The electoral college does not makes sense any more and the only reason republicans are super desperate to keep it because they would rarely win elections with the popular vote. It's dumb. The electoral college assures that people's votes do not count unless they are in swing states. If you live in a blue/red state, you might as well not bother voting. It's no surprise that half the country doesn't vote. A popular vote for president of the entire country makes sense to count every individual vote as an individual vote, not to water it down based on the size of the land mass in a state. That way people actually have the power instead of land mass. I can't believe anybody would actually support keeping the electoral college. It is the single biggest problem with our election system.

LMAO at comparing that to mob rule. It only applies to electing 2 people. What a joke. It doesn't suddenly turn policy making into mob rule. Slippery slope fallacy as always. Conservatives live off that fallacy.

2016 saw the biggest turnout in voting history. Try again. Republicans are desperate to uphold the constitution of the United States of America? You don't say!

If we went by the popular vote then the vote of people in 49 other states wouldn't have counted in the last election. You want to silence the vote of the people in 49 states just to benefit the outcome you didn't get. You can disguise that as "every vote would count" but nobody else is stupid enough to buy the BS you're selling. Lemme guess, you're a green new deal supporter.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Lucidparadox

You don't get that since the 1700's, the normal citizens of this country haven't wanted the biggest state(s) deciding the election for everybody? Without CA, Trump wins the popular vote in 49 states. What kind of sense would it make to let CA be the deciding factor in our elections? That's the entire purpose behind the electoral vote and why the founding fathers wrote it in. That was back when a 13 year old boy had more backbone and less fear than a 40 year old man today.

See you keep looking at this from a "state" perspective, and thats the disconnect.

The divide in this country used to be closer to riding state lines. It isnt like that anymore, the times and our population has changed.

The political divide in this country is Urban vs Rural no matter where you live.

Conservatives and GOP members here seem to keep repeating "It would be California vs ruling the rest of the country"

Thats not really the case at all... yes California has a massive population and yes they are pretty Left wing.. but.. then again.. they have voted for republican governors no?

Also..

New York
Chicago
Houston
Philly
Phoenix
Dallas
Miami
Boston
Cleveland
St. Louis
Albuquerque
Denver
Las Vegas
New Orleans


They are all blue.. and they arent in california.. even republican states have large dem populations