Ending The Electoral College

[gohawks50]

Also, you dont change the rules when you are losing. I held that line when dems were in charge, you can hold that line now.

Can you give me an example of what rules you held the line on when Democrats were in charge?

 

[jimneffer]

Can you give me an example of what rules you held the line on when Democrats were in charge?

we all remember the quiet stoicism of trump supporters during the biden admin...

 

[Rifler]

That's not true either.

Correct, it is not perfectly equal but upon inception tools were put in place to provide balance among the states,... Glad you're paying attention.

 

[WDDT]

Can you give me an example of what rules you held the line on when Democrats were in charge?

Sure, I can go search for any one of the multitude of examples on the old site, whats it worth to ya?


You willing to say "thank you, you appear to be someone who follows a consistent compass. I wish more people were like that".

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Actually the Declaration of Independence began with,... "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"... You're confusing it with the Constitution.

My bad. I make mistakes fairly regularly.

I hope the pedantry doesn't stop you from grasping the spirit of the comment. Mostly because that would be lame and probably bs.

 

[gohawks50]

Sure, I can go search for any one of the multitude of examples on the old site, whats it worth to ya?


You willing to say "thank you, you appear to be someone who follows a consistent compass. I wish more people were like that".

I don't need to see exact posts, I'm just really curious what you are talking about. The only things I remember Republicans wanting to change in regards to voting are things like voter ID, mail in ballots, and proof of citizenship. Are you saying you spoke against those things when Biden was President or is there something else I'm forgetting that Republicans wanted when they weren't in power?

 

[WDDT]

I don't need to see exact posts, I'm just really curious what you are talking about. The only things I remember Republicans wanting to change in regards to voting are things like voter ID, mail in ballots, and proof of citizenship. Are you saying you spoke against those things when Biden was President or is there something else I'm forgetting that Republicans wanted when they weren't in power?

Did I put that caveat on them being specific to voting or you moving the goal post on me teach?


There were many examples.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

us population/538....each state gets one elector for every 630,000 (or so) people

sorry wyoming - you don't get 3. now you get 0.92.

you know...for fairness.

That's why I think removing the cap on the house and allocating seats based on the smallest district(Wyoming or Deleware usually) is probably a much more realistic update to a system that purposely hasn't been allowed to keep up with population growth.

TBF, I'm not convinced my opinions on how to better represent voters in elections is necessarily in my personal best interest or would shift elections closer to my viewpoint.

It's strictly the principle of what I view as right.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Correct, it is not perfectly equal but upon inception tools were put in place to provide balance among the states,... Glad you're paying attention.

And what happened after "inception"?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Did I put that caveat on them being specific to voting or you moving the goal post on me teach?


There were many examples.

 

[gohawks50]

Did I put that caveat on them being specific to voting or you moving the goal post on me teach?


There were many examples.

I thought we were talking about voting in this thread so I assumed your comment related to it as well. If there are many examples of you "holding the line when dems were in charge" on anything surely you could list 2 or 3?

 

[Rifler]

My bad. I make mistakes fairly regularly.

I hope the pedantry doesn't stop you from grasping the spirit of the comment. Mostly because that would be lame and probably bs.

No problem, but look closely at the opening statement that you suggested we refer to:

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"...

The reference to thirteen separate entities,.. Use of the lower case word "united" as a verb,.. Use of an upper case version of the word "States", lending special importance to that descriptor,... This was about a grouping of states.

 

[WDDT]

I thought we were talking about voting in this thread so I assumed your comment related to it as well. If there are many examples of you "holding the line when dems were in charge" on anything surely you could list 2 or 3?

Well thats twice you've been wrong, maybe instead of imposing your own beliefs you could just play the f.ucking ball where it is?

Redistricting, changing the courts.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

No problem, but look closely at the opening statement that you suggested we refer to:

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"...

The reference to thirteen separate entities,.. Use of the lower case word "united" as a verb,.. Use of an upper case version of the word "States", lending special importance to that descriptor,... This was about a grouping of states.

I really don't know what that has to do with the conversation I was having or the state of things in the post-federalist era, but thank you.

I mean this in the most sensitive manner possible, but you come across as completely dishonest when you flit from one century to another without acknowledging the changes that have taken place in the interm.

 

[Rifler]

And what happened after "inception"?

Life,... The states continue to function as the primary entities that make up this country.

 

[gohawks50]

Well thats twice you've been wrong, maybe instead of imposing your own beliefs you could just play the f.ucking ball where it is?

Redistricting, changing the courts.

Thanks for your answer. I don't understand your anger about being asked a question. I didn't think my questions were disrespectful. I apologize if you perceived them as being so.

 

[WDDT]

Thanks for your answer. I don't understand your anger about being asked a question. I didn't think my questions were disrespectful. I apologize if you perceived them as being so.

I dont think they were in anyway. I just think we often ask of others without being willing to put skin in the game ourselves.

Nothing but love gohawks. Have a good day.

 

[Rifler]

I really don't know what that has to do with the conversation I was having or the state of things in the post-federalist era, but thank you. I mean this in the most sensitive manner possible, but you come across as completely dishonest when you flit from one century to another without acknowledging the changes that have taken place in the interm.

I believe you were the one to steer the conversation towards the founding father's views on citizens and how they play a part in our "democracy"...

"Well f@ck me, I thought those entities were called citizens. I wonder why the Declaration of Independence didn't start We The Area..."

I'll be done.

 

[jimneffer]

I believe you were the one to steer the conversation towards the founding father's views on citizens and how they play a part in our "democracy"...

"Well f@ck me, I thought those entities were called citizens. I wonder why the Declaration of Independence didn't start We The Area..."

I'll be done.

by that reference, it seems clear jerome intended to refer to the constitution...which seems like the more relevant document (compared to the DOI) when discussing the structure and operation of our government and what our founding fathers viewed it

 

[Moogy]

Federal Republic

Which does nothing to explain the existence of the Electoral College, but ... other than that, Lieutenant Down Syndrome of the Confederate Army ... gold star.

 

[Moogy]

The system is not designed to make every individual vote equally pivotal in every election. It is designed to select a president through a federation of states while still weighting population.

It treats the states as the primary units of presidential selection rather than reducing the country to a single national popular vote. This preserves the idea that the United States is a union of states, not simply a unitary national democracy. States retain a distinct voice in choosing the executive who will enforce federal law within their borders.

it protects the federal character of the Union, the relative influence of smaller states, geographic breadth in presidential politics, and a degree of insulation from pure popular-majority outcomes concentrated in a few high-population areas.

The system is designed to help the Southern states keep slaves, because they're too lazy and/or incompetent to exist without owning people. And then they still wanted to leave, so they killed a bunch of Americans in order to attempt to do so and become something other than Americans. But, we're still left with the vestigial idiocy that is the Electoral College.

 

[Moogy]

Without the electoral college, the voters in LA and NYC will disenfranchise EVERY Iowa vote, that's why

Instead, now the voters in LA can disenfranchise EVERY other California vote, and the voters in NYC can disenfranchise EVERY other New York state vote.

When every vote counts the same toward a goal, that's NOT disenfranchisement. When some rule exists where your vote has more or less power over the thing you're ultimately trying to select, THAT is disenfranchisement. So, for instance, if some artificial intermediary step, such as collecting votes within ... let's say ... a state, and then determining that only the most popular selection in that state then gets all the votes toward a President ... meaning, if there are 50,000,001 blues, and 50,000,000 reds, those 50M reds get flushed ... that would be disenfranchisement, if that's not the final vote of determination.

 

[WDSMHawk]

Also, you dont change the rules when you are losing. I held that line when dems were in charge, you can hold that line now.

Please provide all the posts you made calling out Republican states for passing voter suppression laws following Dems winning the trifecta during the 2020 election.

TIA

 

[TJ8869]

I’ve mentioned this before on the old board, but I sometimes wish John Kerry had received another 120K votes in Ohio in 2004. It would have given him 271 EC votes and the election despite GWB winning the popular vote by roughly 3 million.

It would have been kinda fun watching Republicans attack the Electoral College while Democrats fiercely defended it.

 

[WDDT]

Please provide all the posts you made calling out Republican states for passing voter suppression laws following Dems winning the trifecta during the 2020 election.

TIA

Whats it to ya?

Ill do the leg work but your going to need more skin in the game than a limp dick Tia.

 

[Tenacious E_rivals41982]

For those who don’t agree with Leigh, here, please refute what she’s saying. How is she wrong? Why should Republican voters in California not matter. Why should Democrat voters in Alabama not matter?

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't post this:

 

[Tom Paris]

why isn't it working for us??

Did you watch and listen to what she said? She explained that to you.

 

[Tom Paris]

Of course he currently doesn’t like it. He was told not to.

Says a guy who votes for an authoritarian child rapist. You're in a cult.

 

[Tom Paris]

OP is the kind of guy that slurps up propaganda all day and thinks the other side are brainwashed idiots.

He's not wrong about them, but self awareness is severely lacking.

 

[Tom Paris]

You think people are forgetting that states exist?

Republicans do when the need arises.

 

[Tom Paris]

Instead, now the voters in LA can disenfranchise EVERY other California vote, and the voters in NYC can disenfranchise EVERY New York state vote.

When every vote counts the same toward a goal, that's NOT disenfranchisement. When some rule exists where your vote has more or less power over the thing you're ultimately trying to select, THAT is disenfranchisement. So, for instance, if some artificial intermediary step, such as collecting votes within ... let's say ... a state, and then determining that only the most popular selection in that state then gets all the votes toward a President ... meaning, if there are 50,000,001 blues, and 50,000,000 reds, those 50M reds get flushed ... that would be disenfranchisement, if that's not the final vote of determination.

It's like they didn't watch the video or something. California Republicans votes should matter just as much as a California Democrat. A Mississippi Democrat's vote should count the same as a Mississippi Republican.

 

[GesterHawk]

And what happened after "inception"?

9 months later the baby pops out... Duh.

 

[GesterHawk]

I’ve mentioned this before on the old board, but I sometimes wish John Kerry had received another 120K votes in Ohio in 2004. It would have given him 271 EC votes and the election despite GWB winning the popular vote by roughly 3 million.

It would have been kinda fun watching Republicans attack the Electoral College while Democrats fiercely defended it.

I don't know if I would defend the Electoral College fiercely, but I would laugh my *** off.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Its in the Constitution first and foremost mofos. Why should California get more electoral votes by counting millions of illegals? A lot of you losers are outright commies.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

by that reference, it seems clear jerome intended to refer to the constitution...which seems like the more relevant document (compared to the DOI) when discussing the structure and operation of our government and what our founding fathers viewed it

Yeah, that Jerry @$shole definitely made a error, but I'mnot sure that going to change his mind.

Don't worry I'll teach him a lesson when seasonal depression decends.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Instead, now the voters in LA can disenfranchise EVERY other California vote, and the voters in NYC can disenfranchise EVERY other New York state vote.

When every vote counts the same toward a goal, that's NOT disenfranchisement. When some rule exists where your vote has more or less power over the thing you're ultimately trying to select, THAT is disenfranchisement. So, for instance, if some artificial intermediary step, such as collecting votes within ... let's say ... a state, and then determining that only the most popular selection in that state then gets all the votes toward a President ... meaning, if there are 50,000,001 blues, and 50,000,000 reds, those 50M reds get flushed ... that would be disenfranchisement, if that's not the final vote of determination.

Oh yeah.

Vote for me and all Ill do is remind everyone that states sticking with winner-take-all suck at life, and so does Nebraska and Maine.

 

[baltimorened]

Did you watch and listen to what she said? She explained that to you.

so what she thinks is sacrosanct?

 

[Tom Paris]

so what she thinks is sacrosanct?

Refute what she said.

 

[baltimorened]

Refute what she said.

to tell you the truth, I'm not interested in the subject to spend the time. The electoral college has been around for a long time....I see no reason to change, no matter what anyone else believes. She, and you are entitled to your opinions, I'm entitled to mine. But this is a democracy if the majority says do away with it, I'm not going to jump off a ledge..

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I don't know if I would defend the Electoral College fiercely, but I would laugh my *** off.

It's always been easier to just have a friendly court decide it's too messy to sort out and award the win to their guy.