It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Nuclear option" used - Good!

page: 2
44
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.




Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.




posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I laughed when I read the angst, overall I am against it on principle because down the road someone is going to seriously abuse it.

But to see the left cry and whine when it was the left that changed the rules to allow this is fairly amusing.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.

edit on 4/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Really? thats how you remember it? Is that why when Obama left office hundreds of judges had not been appointed? The Republicans wouldn't even bring up the appointments.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   
If Democrats keep trying to make America socialist, Repubs will be in control (where it matters) for the next 50 years, at least.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.

edit on 5/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.


It's kind of amazing that you don't understand the actual point of the electoral college. It is not a "demotic" process, it is a Republican process wherein the most populated areas can not lord over the less populated areas in regard to the executive. It always has been there for that - and the fact that you think it is a demotic process shows that you are either lying through your fingertips or you just don't really understand it.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.


It's kind of amazing that you don't understand the actual point of the electoral college. It is not a "demotic" process, it is a Republican process wherein the most populated areas can not lord over the less populated areas in regard to the executive. It always has been there for that - and the fact that you think it is a demotic process shows that you are either lying through your fingertips or you just don't really understand it.


Really?

Then where is the District of Columbia in the Electoral College districts?



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.


It's kind of amazing that you don't understand the actual point of the electoral college. It is not a "demotic" process, it is a Republican process wherein the most populated areas can not lord over the less populated areas in regard to the executive. It always has been there for that - and the fact that you think it is a demotic process shows that you are either lying through your fingertips or you just don't really understand it.


Really?

Then where is the District of Columbia in the Electoral College districts?


Tell me, even if they were added (which there is also a constitutional reason for) would it really help your reasoning? What would they get ? .5?
I can't help it that you have totalitarian impulses, even if so, I will never personally let that demean my love of the way our founders set this system up. If you don't like it, find a country more suited to your impulses. May I suggest China?



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Why would DC be included? It was designed to house our nation's government. They are not a State.

It would be seen as giving the federal government undue influence over a process reserved solely to the states (ie: electing the President)

You realize the Presidential election is actually just a bunch of mini-elections in States, right?

The Presidential election does not directly measure what the people want. People are counted at the State level. The States decide the election, according to their own laws and how they want to handle the election. Their electors in the electoral college actually elect the President. Most States now have laws requiring the electors to vote how the majority of their populations vote, but this is by no means universal and certainly not any sort of requirement imposed on the states.

The left, with its "Hamiltonian elector" campaign, already knows this... which begs the question, why are they still complaining about the process? Same rules we've always used for electing Presidents...
edit on 4/5/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.


It's kind of amazing that you don't understand the actual point of the electoral college. It is not a "demotic" process, it is a Republican process wherein the most populated areas can not lord over the less populated areas in regard to the executive. It always has been there for that - and the fact that you think it is a demotic process shows that you are either lying through your fingertips or you just don't really understand it.


Really?

Then where is the District of Columbia in the Electoral College districts?


Tell me, even if they were added (which there is also a constitutional reason for) would it really help your reasoning? What would they get ? .5?
I can't help it that you have totalitarian impulses, even if so, I will never personally let that demean my love of the way our founders set this system up. If you don't like it, find a country more suited to your impulses. May I suggest China?


So questioning the modern relevance of a 237 year old system somehow leads to totalitarianism. Perhaps you could explain to me the sequence of how that happens?

And, I'm not an American anyway, in case you assumed that I was.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

Why would DC be included? It was designed to house our nation's government. They are not a State.

It would be seen as giving the federal government undue influence over a process reserved solely to the states (ie: electing the President)

You realize the Presidential election is actually just a bunch of mini-elections in States, right?

The Presidential election does not directly measure what the people want. People are counted at the State level. The States decide the election, according to their own laws and how they want to handle the election. Their electors in the electoral college actually elect the President. Most States now have laws requiring the electors to vote how the majority of their populations vote, but this is by no means universal and certainly not any sort of requirement imposed on the states.

The left, with its "Hamiltonian elector" campaign, already knows this... which begs the question, why are they still complaining about the process? Same rules we've always used for electing Presidents...


Firstly, although the original plan of the District of Columbia was to home the government. That was 237 years ago. Since then, the District of Columbia now houses a population of more than 700,000, primarily colored people.

The estimate is that there are only about 196,000 government employees living in DC. That leaves about 504,000 people who are not government employees, living in DC.

In contrast, the state of Wyoming only houses 577,000 people, yet it has EC representation and has historically had representation with a far, far smaller population.

If the EC is the elector of the President, why go through the farce of a futile and expensive general election?



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.


Are you suggesting we simply have 50 votes? 1 for each state of the union. From a state perspective I actually think that would be the most fair. Each state gets one equal say, whichever candidate wins the most states becomes President.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.



Each state is given a number of EC votes, based on population taken from census data. A state like California (With 55 electoral votes) or New York has a much higher population than states like North Dakota. However, there is only a handful of states like this. A minority, if you will. If we only used the popular vote, 5 states (the few) would determine the election outcome for all 50 states, because candidates would bypass those "flyover states" and never court the rural population in their campaigning and policy. 45 states (the many) with millions of people would have no voice.

I don't think you understand our system as well as you think you do.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: GenerationGap

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.


Are you suggesting we simply have 50 votes? 1 for each state of the union. From a state perspective I actually think that would be the most fair. Each state gets one equal say, whichever candidate wins the most states becomes President.


No, every citizen of voting age should be registered and vote unless they are medically/physically incapable of doing so.

You see, states aren't conscious entities, so therefore the decisions required by state governance have to be decided by someone who is a conscious entity. At present, it would be inefficient for state governance to have elections about every minor (or even major) decision that must be made and so it is irrational to expect that the determinations arising from statehood are actually representative of the will of the constituents of the state. To amplify that concentration of power by only granting the states a vote, is unfair.

For issues of the governance of an entire country, all registered voting age citizens of the country should be participants and vote on important matters (such as determining how they will be governed). Where possible, none should be excluded and none should be regarded as having more 'vote' than others.

There is already a general election process that happens in parallel with the EC votes but the Electoral College currently invalidates the general election in practical terms.

Simply allow the existing general election to be valid and to override the EC vote instead of the other way around.

edit on 6/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.



Each state is given a number of EC votes, based on population taken from census data. A state like California (With 55 electoral votes) or New York has a much higher population than states like North Dakota. However, there is only a handful of states like this. A minority, if you will. If we only used the popular vote, 5 states (the few) would determine the election outcome for all 50 states, because candidates would bypass those "flyover states" and never court the rural population in their campaigning and policy. 45 states (the many) with millions of people would have no voice.

I don't think you understand our system as well as you think you do.


Despite all the 'this stands for that' bait and switch (the idea that the EC voters 'represent' a population), the Electoral College actually and finally comes down to 538 individual, pre-selected 'electors'. This is why 270 votes = a majority.

Here's a hint, are any of those EC electors chosen by a vote of all the electors of the state as being representative of the political will of the constituency, or is it the case that in most states the existing governing political party (even at the national level) makes that decision? Where is the voice of independents or opposition parties or even of the actual constituents in the decision?

Stage magicians use the same misdirection trick. It doesn't matter how you shuffle the deck if they have already palmed a hand of their preferred cards which they will use while you are watching the shuffle.

The Electoral College process is sleight of hand with a loaded deck, controlled by the deep state that rules you.

edit on 6/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
Face it, if Senate Republicans wouldn't have invoked the nuclear option we would have kept our hands tied needlessly. We all know Dems would do the same thing when or if they ever regain control of that legislative body.
This will reduce the debate time (ie stalling tactics) and allow our confirmations to proceed without further delay.
www.nbcnews.com...


April 6, 2019

Little Robert Reich declares that Mitch McConnell is "Destroying the Senate -- and American Government!"

Oooh. Reich is Angry!: www.theguardian.com...

Senate leader McConnell has grown a pair and is going full-on MAGA, with NO FEAR!



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: JBurns
Face it, if Senate Republicans wouldn't have invoked the nuclear option we would have kept our hands tied needlessly. We all know Dems would do the same thing when or if they ever regain control of that legislative body.
This will reduce the debate time (ie stalling tactics) and allow our confirmations to proceed without further delay.
www.nbcnews.com...


April 6, 2019

Little Robert Reich declares that Mitch McConnell is "Destroying the Senate -- and American Government!"

Oooh. Reich is Angry!: www.theguardian.com...

Senate leader McConnell has grown a pair and is going full-on MAGA, with NO FEAR!




I'm confused. The woman(?) in this picture is wearing red.

Does that mean that the reeeee-publicans are being triggered?



edit on 7/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.



Each state is given a number of EC votes, based on population taken from census data. A state like California (With 55 electoral votes) or New York has a much higher population than states like North Dakota. However, there is only a handful of states like this. A minority, if you will. If we only used the popular vote, 5 states (the few) would determine the election outcome for all 50 states, because candidates would bypass those "flyover states" and never court the rural population in their campaigning and policy. 45 states (the many) with millions of people would have no voice.

I don't think you understand our system as well as you think you do.


Despite all the 'this stands for that' bait and switch (the idea that the EC voters 'represent' a population), the Electoral College actually and finally comes down to 538 individual, pre-selected 'electors'. This is why 270 votes = a majority.

Here's a hint, are any of those EC electors chosen by a vote of all the electors of the state as being representative of the political will of the constituency, or is it the case that in most states the existing governing political party (even at the national level) makes that decision? Where is the voice of independents or opposition parties or even of the actual constituents in the decision?

Stage magicians use the same misdirection trick. It doesn't matter how you shuffle the deck if they have already palmed a hand of their preferred cards which they will use while you are watching the shuffle.

The Electoral College process is sleight of hand with a loaded deck, controlled by the deep state that rules you.


All state electors nominated by party, and are voted for by state residents, and in turn they cast their vote accordingly. So right off the bat you're wrong.

Now we can examine how Democrats stole the nomination from Bernie with sleight of hand and "super-delegates", if you'd like.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join