New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The popular vote isn't a thing

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
The states that decided this election were Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The campaigns are run in battleground states. Not the small states. The Electoral College creates "one party states"....republicans in California or New York and democrats in Texas don't count in presidential elections...so the EC discourages turnout.

We are a republic because we elect representatives to the House to vote on legislation instead of having elections to do it. The small states are protected by their senators...they get the same representation in the Senate as every other state...See how that works?

Meanwhile, the president is not the president of individual states. He is the president of the nation. That is why the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE should and will elect him.
30 states actually decided the election
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
I don't have one, you'll have to ask someone else.

So what do you object to exactly or you're just being snotty?
Why should IOWA matter more in the primaries than NJ.
Answer, because the rules are undemocratic and they infringe on the rights of Americans

Why should states have different election rules.
Answer, because there is no fair system, do schoolchildren have different rules in every class? Our system is near anarchy as you can see on any TV channel right now
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
Why should IOWA matter more in the primaries than NJ.
Answer, because the rules are undemocratic and they infringe on the rights of Americans

Why should states have different election rules.
Answer, because there is no fair system, do schoolchildren have different rules in every class? Our system is near anarchy as you can see on any TV channel right now
OK, so you believe in a single centralized government. I wasn't clear about that. Got it. That isn't what our country was designed to be. We were designed to be a collection of States that shared a defense, but were mostly autonomous. Personally I think you should change the Constitution rather than ignoring it, but that isn't going to happen
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
OK, so you believe in a single centralized government. I wasn't clear about that. Got it. That isn't what our country was designed to be. We were designed to be a collection of States that shared a defense, but were mostly autonomous. Personally I think you should change the Constitution rather than ignoring it, but that isn't going to happen
Our country was not designed that any state should have more importance then any other, which means that the people in that are also of more importance. I want to vote in primaries, but my vote never counts because the noms are always already chosen by the time nj votes. Fair is fair right is right and wrong is wrong, nothing changes when you step over a state line.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Four times in our history has the popular vote been overridden by the EC....two in the last 20 years. The constitution changes. It changed to allow women and minorities to vote. Did you have a problem with that? It changed to outlaw alcohol and then changed to make it legal again.. Did you think the EC is the same process as it was in the first election? It isn't.

Get used to change.

You equated the Electoral college to prohibition ?

Popular vote = mob rule. A Kingdom. Exactly what we aren't.
Congratulations on the most retarded post of the day.
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
There isn't one election in this country, there are 50 elections. Adding the results of those elections together and declaring them the winner is like going to the point differential between NFL teams and declaring the largest point spread the winner.

1) Everyone knows who is winning their State and by how much. People do and don't show up to vote based on how the election in their State is doing, not on how the national election is going. So there is no logical basis to say that Hillary won some sort of fake point spread battle and that means anything. Many millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, etc. have no incentive to show up for example.

2) The founders were right that small States should have some level of protection from big ones. Big ones today are mostly socialist. They are malevolent to small States. All the more reason they should have more protection

3) Every State has slightly different voting rules, machines, processes, requirements. Again, to claim you can add point spreads together and draw a conclusion is ridiculous. That California can register millions of illegal aliens and allow them to vote while other States don't doesn't make us more "democratic"

4) We aren't a Democracy, we are a Republic. The Feds were to just provide for a national defense and a few other things. There is no reason to have a "Democracy" for a limited function government. The States should control it. And most government should be local. Local government should be democratic
This is spot on.

And candidates don't spend time in states they can't win.
 

The truth

Council Member
OK, so you believe in a single centralized government. I wasn't clear about that. Got it. That isn't what our country was designed to be. We were designed to be a collection of States that shared a defense, but were mostly autonomous. Personally I think you should change the Constitution rather than ignoring it, but that isn't going to happen
The "United States" is mostly autonomous ? Absurd
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Our country was not designed that any state should have more importance then any other, which means that the people in that are also of more importance. I want to vote in primaries, but my vote never counts because the noms are always already chosen by the time nj votes. Fair is fair right is right and wrong is wrong, nothing changes when you step over a state line.
So it seems you think the country was designed that voters in some states are more important than others.
 

EatTheRich

President
There isn't one election in this country, there are 50 elections. Adding the results of those elections together and declaring them the winner is like going to the point differential between NFL teams and declaring the largest point spread the winner.

1) Everyone knows who is winning their State and by how much. People do and don't show up to vote based on how the election in their State is doing, not on how the national election is going. So there is no logical basis to say that Hillary won some sort of fake point spread battle and that means anything. Many millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, etc. have no incentive to show up for example.

2) The founders were right that small States should have some level of protection from big ones. Big ones today are mostly socialist. They are malevolent to small States. All the more reason they should have more protection

3) Every State has slightly different voting rules, machines, processes, requirements. Again, to claim you can add point spreads together and draw a conclusion is ridiculous. That California can register millions of illegal aliens and allow them to vote while other States don't doesn't make us more "democratic"

4) We aren't a Democracy, we are a Republic. The Feds were to just provide for a national defense and a few other things. There is no reason to have a "Democracy" for a limited function government. The States should control it. And most government should be local. Local government should be democratic
Big states aren’t “malevolent” toward small states, they are just dragged down by their backwardness.

“Illegal aliens” don’t vote in presidential elections.

The best reason to have a democracy is to provide a check on the power of government that the current oligarchic republic doesn’t allow for.
 
Top