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

So let's be honest lefty....if Trump won the Popular vote but not the EC

justoffal

Senator
All of you here would be fans of the EC instead of trying to forget that this is the UNITED STATES composed of 50 states and not just one big landmass with no local government in place.

Now I'm not saying that there wouldn't be some noise on the right that mirrors the utter nonsense coming from the left right now but I am certain that the temper tantrums would be absent and the self ignitions with gas and match would be non existent.

Lefty has some kind of real mental illness when it comes to not getting everything his way all the time...every time right down to the last pebble. Oh...that's right...it's called absolutism and it is the earmark of every major dictatorship in the past two hundred years.

Here's an interesting piece of falderal from Lawrence " Less-Brains " Lessing
A guy who I have read regularly as a whining, condescending liberal hack who absolutely swims in an entire ocean of "IT'S DIFFERENT ". Hooboy this guy is sick.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-constitution-lets-the-electoral-college-choose-the-winner-they-should-choose-clinton/2016/11/24/0f431828-b0f7-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.7faa08f27888


Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions  — most important, the electors themselves.

The framers believed, as Alexander Hamilton put it, that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president].” But no nation had ever tried that idea before. So the framers created a safety valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the people’s choice. Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” — and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment,  not cogs turning a wheel. ( Au contraire; the citizens in a POTUS election are indeed cogs turning a wheel.... fifty cogs...wake up and go back to history class Larry! )

I love this guy...he is one of the best liars I have ever read in print...first he makes the case that the Electoral college is a major constituent of the foundation and then he infers that it is a way to ignore the will of the people at the same time ...and what kills me is that he makes it sound good. But a Birthday cake made out of multicolored shixt...is still a pile of shixt and so is this article. As if to say that the individual states have no standing whatsoever. Of course if the results were reversed he would be saying the exact opposite...that the EC was the voice of the people! Count on it.

I also notice that he conveniently does not talk about the reason the EC was set up in the first place...to stop overpopulated areas from dominating underpopulated ones. Of course Lefty is always selective in his recall of convenient history facts. Without some way to balance the powers between the large states and the small ones ( population wise ) the United states could not exist..plain and simple.

SEE PART TWO BELOW


 
Last edited:

justoffal

Senator
Many ( I always love it when a hack starts off a sentence with a mystery id like Many...Many who? Many what? Goebbels would be proud no? ) think we should abolish the electoral college. I’m not convinced that we should. Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of massive fraud pervades a close election? ( OK Larry...so what is it? The will of the people or the will of the ruling class..make up your mind man...the people have elected many rapists...many theives...many unsavory characters .... ) It is a useful thing to have a body confirm the results of a democratic election ( OH? What are you saying here Larry? Confirm or overrule? Once again lefty you cannot seem to make up your mind ... if the ultimate decision rests with the electors why have an election at all why not just go with the Electoral College ...it would save so much money and time! ) — so long as that body exercises its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.

So, do the electors in 2016 have such a reason?

Only twice in our past has the electoral college selected a president against the will of the people — once in the 19th century and once on the cusp of the 21st. (In 1824, it was Congress that decided the election for John Quincy Adams; likewise in 1876, it was Congress that gave disputed electoral college votes to Rutherford B. Hayes.)

Yes Larry....but you are very lean on the details buddy....there was a lot more to the 1876 election than meets the eye. It's fair to say that the Country had not yet been fully reunited after the civil war at this point. Also you continue to ignore that the " Will of the People " in a presidential race is also a reflection of the individual states and not just the population of the state groups....you also completely ignore the fact that the states have no such electoral process...one person is one vote in the state but it cannot be in the Federal Election...because then it would not actually be a Federal Election Larry....you silly loon!

United States presidential election, 1876

1872
November 7, 18761880

All 369 electoral votes of the Electoral College
185 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout
81.8%[1]
10.5 pp

Nominee Rutherford B. Hayes Samuel J. Tilden
Party Republican Democratic
Home state Ohio New York
Running mate William A. Wheeler Thomas A. Hendricks
Electoral vote 185 184
States carried 21 17
Popular vote 4,034,311 4,288,546
Percentage
47.9% 50.9%





Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Hayes/Wheeler, blue denotes those won by Tilden/Hendricks. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.

President before election
Ulysses S. Grant
Republican

Elected President
Rutherford B. Hayes
Republican







In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland but won in the electoral college, only because Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall turned New York away from the reformer Cleveland (by fewer than 15,000 votes). In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote by a tiny fraction — half a percent — and beat Al Gore in the electoral college by an equally small margin — less than 1 percent. ( Poor Larry....he doesn't like corruption in politics and yet he likes the Clintons ....wow Larry....time for Meds no? Boss Tweed was a piker compared to your lady love Hillary buddy .)

In both cases, the result violated what has become one of the most important principles governing our democracy — one person, one vote.
( Bullshit ) In both cases, the votes of some weighed much more heavily than the votes of others. Today, the vote of a citizen in Wyoming is four times as powerful as the vote of a citizen in Michigan. The vote of a citizen in Vermont is three times as powerful as a vote in Missouri. This denies Americans the fundamental value of a representative democracy — equal citizenship. Yet nothing in our Constitution compels this result. ( So you want to disenfranchise Vermont now? What a lunatic! No Maple Syrup for you Larry! )

Instead, if the electoral college is to control who becomes our president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely. It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy.
( Riiiiiiight....in other words Larry you are a totalitarian Hey buddy...how about his one? The people did go crazy...they elected an international Criminal....and the EC did just as you wanted them to do! They reversed it!)


In this election, the people did not go crazy.
( Says who Larry? Is that why lefty is marching in the streets and threatening another civil war? ) The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. ( How about her Criminal Record Larry? ) Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.

( Here in this one paragraph Larry finally shows why he should be locked up in a mental institution...We need the Electoral College to ignore the will of the people so it can listen to the will of the people...um...Larry...I say once again....MEDS! The EC did just as you wished...it just didn't choose the person you wanted moron. )


Yet that is not the question the electors must weigh as they decide how to cast their ballots. Instead, the question they must ask themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the people’s choice. ( Larry...buddy.....in case you haven't notices the people made a choice )



There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. We are all citizens equally. Our votes should count equally. And since nothing in our Constitution compels a decision otherwise, the electors should respect the equal vote by the people by ratifying it on Dec. 19. ( Once again Larry wants to erase state lines and forget that there are fifty states...sigh...silly liberals....they still thing there's 57 states out there somewhere )

They didn’t in 1888 — when Tammany Hall ruled New York and segregation was the law of the land. And they didn’t in 2000 — when in the minds of most, the election was essentially a tie. Those are plainly precedents against Hillary Clinton.
( Wow....I knew that sooner or later this assxhole was going to try to wedge the race card in.....how???.... I wondered.... since Hillary is white? But he managed to grease up the enema with molasses and quietly insert it while he thought we were sleeping....right at the end of the article....Larry you are a Hoot! )

JO
 
Last edited:

justoffal

Senator
Have you ever thought about discussing reality, instead of scenarios cooked up in your imagination?
WOW.... I know you didn't have enough time to read the post.....but good try.

Larry....is quite a Hoot....

He says we Need the EC so it can express the will of the People by ...um...ignoring the will of the people. I think he needs help. First he says one man one vote but then he nullfies all of the votes by saying that the EC is there to protect the nation from populist uprising....kinda crazy .... but then again Larry is a lefty.

JO
 

bdtex

Administrator
Staff member
I for one,am not in favor of tinkering with it. For the most part,the system has worked pretty well since it's inception.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Many ( I always love it when a hack starts off a sentence with a mystery id like Many...Many who? Many what? Goebbels would be proud no? ) think we should abolish the electoral college. I’m not convinced that we should. Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of massive fraud pervades a close election? ( OK Larry...so what is it? The will of the people or the will of the ruling class..make up your mind man...the people have elected many rapists...many theives...many unsavory characters .... ) It is a useful thing to have a body confirm the results of a democratic election ( OH? What are you saying here Larry? Confirm or overrule? Once again lefty you cannot seem to make up your mind ... if the ultimate decision rests with the electors why have an election at all why not just go with the Electoral College ...it would save so much money and time! ) — so long as that body exercises its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.

So, do the electors in 2016 have such a reason?

Only twice in our past has the electoral college selected a president against the will of the people — once in the 19th century and once on the cusp of the 21st. (In 1824, it was Congress that decided the election for John Quincy Adams; likewise in 1876, it was Congress that gave disputed electoral college votes to Rutherford B. Hayes.)

Yes Larry....but you are very lean on the details buddy....there was a lot more to the 1876 election than meets the eye. It's fair to say that the Country had not yet been fully reunited after the civil war at this point. Also you continue to ignore that the " Will of the People " in a presidential race is also a reflection of the individual states and not just the population of the state groups....you also completely ignore the fact that the states have no such electoral process...one person is one vote in the state but it cannot be in the Federal Election...because then it would not actually be a Federal Election Larry....you silly loon!

United States presidential election, 1876

1872
November 7, 18761880

All 369 electoral votes of the Electoral College
185 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout
81.8%[1]
10.5 pp

Nominee Rutherford B. Hayes Samuel J. Tilden
Party Republican Democratic
Home state Ohio New York
Running mate William A. Wheeler Thomas A. Hendricks
Electoral vote 185 184
States carried 21 17
Popular vote 4,034,311 4,288,546
Percentage
47.9% 50.9%





Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Hayes/Wheeler, blue denotes those won by Tilden/Hendricks. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.

President before election
Ulysses S. Grant
Republican

Elected President
Rutherford B. Hayes
Republican






JO
Wow...too much to copy in a response...

I'm against the EC. Have been for years. Even before Bush/Gore.

There are discussion ON THIS FORUM...from years back.

No...the EC was not created to keep large cities, i.e. "overpopulated areas" from dominating less populated areas. At the time, cities were small...and the majority of populations lived in rural areas. It is a colonial remnant of slave days and goes against our philosophy of one person, one vote.

As we all know, the nation, and therefore the EC counted slaves as 3/5th of a person for population purposes, but that population was forbidden from having their voice heard.

That said...even in my argument against the EC, Hamilton's essay indicates that the electors have no legal allegiance to any candidate and could fail to elect Trump...and be perfectly within their rights...and the Constitutional process.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
WOW.... I know you didn't have enough time to read the post.....but good try.

Larry....is quite a Hoot....

He says we Need the EC so it can express the will of the People by ...um...ignoring the will of the people. I think he needs help. First he says one man one vote but then he nullfies all of the votes by saying that the EC is there to protect the nation from populist uprising....kinda crazy .... but then again Larry is a lefty.

JO
I'm just not into ridiculously wordy "this is what Lefty would do" posts. I'm a reality buff.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
He says we Need the EC so it can express the will of the People by ...um...ignoring the will of the people. I think he needs help. First he says one man one vote but then he nullfies all of the votes by saying that the EC is there to protect the nation from populist uprising....kinda crazy .... but then again Larry is a lefty.

JO
The electors, in a time when mass communications did not exist...revolve around the idea was that some of the more informed and better educated people in the laws of the nation, would serve as electors to prevent a person as described by Hamilton from taking office.

We no longer live in such a small media world and anyone can be as informed as they wish, making the requirement for the "wise" elector somewhat less necessary, although there remains colossal ignorance about the laws of the nation and to whom they apply. This is manifested in such arguments about "free speech" in agencies that have zero interference from Congressional law.

Still...the EC exists...and some argue...exactly for the reason described by Hamilton.
 

justoffal

Senator
Wow...too much to copy in a response...

I'm against the EC. Have been for years. Even before Bush/Gore.

There are discussion ON THIS FORUM...from years back.

No...the EC was not created to keep large cities, i.e. "overpopulated areas" from dominating less populated areas. At the time, cities were small...and the majority of populations lived in rural areas. It is a colonial remnant of slave days and goes against our philosophy of one person, one vote.

As we all know, the nation, and therefore the EC counted slaves as 3/5th of a person for population purposes, but that population was forbidden from having their voice heard.

That said...even in my argument against the EC, Hamilton's essay indicates that the electors have no legal allegiance to any candidate and could fail to elect Trump...and be perfectly within their rights...and the Constitutional process.
Actually I think there are embedded links in copied material that violate the total character limit per post allotment.

If you are against the EC then you are against the idea of statehood. This is the United States not the conglomerated states. Each State should actually have an equal number of electoral votes IMO.....Population centers like California, Texas or even Florida are outsized hogs on the process.

My beef with Mr. Lessing is that he wants the EC to override the people in order to represent the people....he is obviously a bit disturbed.

His reasonning is that the EC is there to protect against Populist uprising....but then again that's what it just did...so I don' t understand his whining frankly; And the last paragraph where he absolutely tortures the race card into the discussion is just Hilarious.


JO
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Actually I think there are embedded links in copied material that violate the total character limit per post allotment.

If you are against the EC then you are against the idea of statehood. This is the United States not the conglomerated states. Each State should actually have an equal number of electoral votes IMO.....Population centers like California, Texas or even Florida are outsized hogs on the process.

JO
None of the states you mentioned were even gleams in the eyes of the FFs.

I'm against the idea of statehood as the method of electing one elected official. I prefer to focus on the word UNITED...as opposed to the word STATES. The idea that each state should have the same number of electors is ludicrous. As it is, Wyoming and the other teeny states already have outsized power in the EC because they all have two Senators.
 

justoffal

Senator
I'm just not into ridiculously wordy "this is what Lefty would do" posts. I'm a reality buff.
Yeah um....the bulk of the material there is from WAPO's Lawrence Lessing....

I have a few introductory words but that's about it except for the colored commentary on his rather insane article.

JO
 

justoffal

Senator
None of the states you mentioned were even gleams in the eyes of the FFs.

I'm against the idea of statehood as the method of electing one elected official. I prefer to focus on the word UNITED...as opposed to the word STATES. The idea that each state should have the same number of electors is ludicrous. As it is, Wyoming and the other teeny states already have outsized power in the EC because they all have two Senators.
Yeah...I'm not sure what that means buddy....but I'm sure you're wrong about the gleam. Your definition of United is rather vacuous IMO. When States Unite they equalize. In your scenario there would be no effective statehood. That's just not up to you. Annnnnd you will never convnce fifty governors to commit state suicide. In your Math States like Wyoming would have to have mius ten or fifteen Senators to be viable partners. Sorry...but nobody is going to do that to themselves.

In any case I'm having real trouble with your value system because I really think your theme would be totally reversed here if it was Trump with the Popular vote and Clinton with the EC. Of cousre you will deny it...but then again that is to be expected.

Also your definiton of " Teeny States " sounds rather Stalinesque.

JO
 
Last edited:

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Yeah...I'm not sure what that means buddy....but I'm sure you're wrong about the gleam. Your definition of United is rather vacuous IMO. When States Unite they equalize. In your scenario there would be no effective statehood. That's just not up to you. Annnnnd you will never convnce fifty governors to commit state suicide. In your Math Staes like wyoming would have to have mius ten or fifteen Senators to be viable partners. Sorry...but nobody is going to do that to themselves.

In any case I'm having real trouble with your value system because I really think your theme would be totally reversed here if it was Trump with the Popular vote and Clinton with the EC.



JO
Believe what you will, your troubles are not my doing.

I'm against the EC.

No...the ONLY change is one elected official. States still have all sorts of abilities on their own.

That said...one of my problems with such autonomous states is that the nation has issues because of the states. A person born in Connecticut...or Maryland...has a better chance at succeeding and living a healthful life than a person born in Mississippi. This does not condemn all folks born into the troubled states, but does make such philosophies as equal protection and equal opportunity rather less than honest outlooks regarding the united aspect of the nation.

I will once again say...my basic premise is based on the preamble...which does not focus on states, but on the greater principles of unity. I have this belief as the mission is clearly stated: a more perfect union.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 

justoffal

Senator
Believe what you will, your troubles are not my doing.

I'm against the EC.

No...the ONLY change is one elected official. States still have all sorts of abilities on their own.

That said...one of my problems with such autonomous states is that the nation has issues because of the states. A person born in Connecticut...or Maryland...has a better chance at succeeding and living a healthful life than a person born in Mississippi. This does not condemn all folks born into the troubled states, but does make such philosophies as equal protection and equal opportunity rather less than honest outlooks regarding the united aspect of the nation.

I will once again say...my basic premise is based on the preamble...which does not focus on states, but on the greater principles of unity. I have this belief as the mission is clearly stated: a more perfect union.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
No...the ONLY change is one elected official. States still have all sorts of abilities on their own.

Huzzah! Therein is the key Craig...
Take away the electoral college and you open the door for the elimination of statehood. Once the population centers dominate the vote it will never be turned back. This is a certainty and a sure path to socio-political-absolutism and something that you have always said that you were against....rule by the majority. You talk about it all the time. So how do you propose to unify these two diametrically opposed positions that you have openly espoused?
 

justoffal

Senator
Believe what you will, your troubles are not my doing.

I'm against the EC.

No...the ONLY change is one elected official. States still have all sorts of abilities on their own.

That said...one of my problems with such autonomous states is that the nation has issues because of the states. A person born in Connecticut...or Maryland...has a better chance at succeeding and living a healthful life than a person born in Mississippi. This does not condemn all folks born into the troubled states, but does make such philosophies as equal protection and equal opportunity rather less than honest outlooks regarding the united aspect of the nation.

I will once again say...my basic premise is based on the preamble...which does not focus on states, but on the greater principles of unity. I have this belief as the mission is clearly stated: a more perfect union.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Regional disparity exists even within states from county to county or city to city...
It would remain very much intact even without the state lines because it is not fostered by statehood.

JO
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Regional disparity exists even within states from county to county or city to city...
It would remain very much intact even without the state lines because it is not fostered by statehood.

JO
I'm having trouble with this one.

The EC is fostered by statehood. So...I agree, the nation would remain intact without the EC.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
WOW.... I know you didn't have enough time to read the post.....but good try.

Larry....is quite a Hoot....

He says we Need the EC so it can express the will of the People by ...um...ignoring the will of the people. I think he needs help. First he says one man one vote but then he nullfies all of the votes by saying that the EC is there to protect the nation from populist uprising....kinda crazy .... but then again Larry is a lefty.

JO
Awarding electors on the basis of winner takes all is ignoring the will of the people...or is it pretending that if 50.1% of the voters were for Trump then the voice of the state is that Trump should be president? I prefer that the actual electors be awarded as the voices of the voters....Trump got 51% of the voters then he gets 51% of the electors of that state. The alternative is that democrats in Texas or republicans in New York should just stay home....they will not count when the president is selected by the EC.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Actually I think there are embedded links in copied material that violate the total character limit per post allotment.

If you are against the EC then you are against the idea of statehood. This is the United States not the conglomerated states. Each State should actually have an equal number of electoral votes IMO.....Population centers like California, Texas or even Florida are outsized hogs on the process.

My beef with Mr. Lessing is that he wants the EC to override the people in order to represent the people....he is obviously a bit disturbed.

His reasonning is that the EC is there to protect against Populist uprising....but then again that's what it just did...so I don' t understand his whining frankly; And the last paragraph where he absolutely tortures the race card into the discussion is just Hilarious.


JO
Why bother with a popular vote at all? Just appoint electors from the wealthiest citizens...we can make it hereditary for the two wealthiest families in the state....pass it down to your kids.....o_O
 

justoffal

Senator
Why bother with a popular vote at all? Just appoint electors from the wealthiest citizens...we can make it hereditary for the two wealthiest families in the state....pass it down to your kids.....o_O
Each state has a hard and fast popular vote. What you want is to eliminate the states.

Good Luck with that. No state entity would have agreed to join the Federal Union with rules of disenfranchisement such as you propose. Now that they are in..... perhaps the could be coerced by more populous areas to do so....so there goes your democracy out the window dude and welcome to the left wing world of Stalin, Mao and Hitler.



JO
 
Last edited:

justoffal

Senator
Awarding electors on the basis of winner takes all is ignoring the will of the people...or is it pretending that if 50.1% of the voters were for Trump then the voice of the state is that Trump should be president? I prefer that the actual electors be awarded as the voices of the voters....Trump got 51% of the voters then he gets 51% of the electors of that state. The alternative is that democrats in Texas or republicans in New York should just stay home....they will not count when the president is selected by the EC.
The WTA stuff ..... there's probably a good argument to be had there. But then again are you Dems really ready to lose the Mammoth that is California?

JO
 
Last edited:
Top