The Battle with the Left is NOT over

[Craig]

Not 2.

Uh huh. Not 2. Got it. So...what's the correct number?

 

[georgephillip]

You can put Jim Crow back in your ass where you got him.

And you can't determine a national election of fifty states by limiting campaigning to TWO states.

Of course not.
You determine the outcome of a national election by the popular votes of all its citizens.

 

[Capitalist]

Of course not.
You determine the outcome of a national election by the popular votes of all its citizens.

equals

determine a national election of fifty states by limiting campaigning to TWO states.

Why the willful ignorance?

 

[Capitalist]

Uh huh. Not 2. Got it. So...what's the correct number?

Well, as long as you agree it's "not 2" then we're done.

Unless of course, we're not talking about "those 2." If we're gonna settle on two states I'd rather choose Kansas and Oklahoma. Wanna make it 3? Okay. We'll include Wyoming.

 

[Craig]

Well, as long as you agree it's "not 2" then we're done.

Unless of course, we're not talking about "those 2." If we're gonna settle on two states I'd rather choose Kansas and Oklahoma.

No...we aren't done. You want to be.

First of all, it's never been two. This is just noise from the right to distract from the concept. It's ALWAYS been the aggregate, the total. As discussed in every thread of this type, the argument returns to the idea of one person, one vote. This includes the people in Kansas and Oklahoma...as well as those in Maryland, California, New York...and Texas.

But of course, you contradict yourself by saying Kansas and Oklahoma would be a fine two state solution.

 

[middleview]

You wouldn't agree with my example so I'm not going to waste my time typing them.
You just think whatever idiocy you wish. I don't care enough to try to change your mind.

I'm curious....If you will waste your time spewing unsubstantiated accusations and hatred towards the president, knowing that half the people here won't agree...Has it hit you yet that you should go one way or the other....

Either give up with the over the top partisan rhetoric or come ready to prove the points you are trying to make.

 

[georgephillip]

equals


Why the willful ignorance?

Popular vote determines every other elected political office in society. Why should POTUS be different?

 

[Capitalist]

Popular vote determines every other elected political office in society. Why should POTUS be different?

First of all, because it's a different branch.

Second, it wasn't always like that. Repeal the 17th Amendment and save us from democracy!

P.S. the 3/5ths clause was a victory for the abolitionists. You don't know shit.

 

[Capitalist]

No...we aren't done. You want to be.

First of all, it's never been two.

Sure it has! Just hit up California and New York on the campaign trail and you're done.

This is just noise from the right to distract from the concept. It's ALWAYS been the aggregate, the total.

See, you're just full of bullshit.

The EC incorporates "the total." "The total" does not equal "the popular vote." You're diving headlong into deception now.

 

[Craig]

Sure it has! Just hit up California and New York on the campaign trail and you're done.


See, you're just full of bullshit.

The EC incorporates "the total." "The total" does not equal "the popular vote." You're diving headlong into deception now.

I have been consistent on this...for years.

Jun 9, 2013...

RC...I'm on the other side of that equation. As it stands today, there is no reason to visit Wyoming. None. It will award 3 votes to the Republican. If we lose the EC, then every vote is the same. A majority in California no longer matters other than the vote total. The weaker side still garners votes. Ohio remains a large state with powerful economic concerns. Candidates would still visit Ohio.

Even so, campaigning in "off" states would make more sense, as there are opposition votes in those states...but many people simply don't vote as there is little reason to if the outcome is already known.

No...the EC does not incorporate the total vote.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Clinton won a majority of votes.
Period.

She didn't win enough votes in the states she needed period.

 

[georgephillip]

P.S. the 3/5ths clause was a victory for the abolitionists. You don't know shit.

Appomattox was the victory for abolitionists

had they hanged or castrated 90% of all surviving southern white male trash, the EC would have died in the 62nd Congress, if not earlier.

 

[georgephillip]

She didn't win enough votes in the states she needed period.

She won a majority of the people's votes.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

She won a majority of the people's votes.

She didn't win the majority of votes in 30 states which is what she needed to happen.

 

[middleview]

One more time here's how the vote works each state has an election whoever wins that state should win the electoral votes of that state. Clinton didn't win enough states. It's just that simple.

That is not how it was designed by the founding fathers...it is how it was modified in 1836. It is not done that way in two states.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

That is not how it was designed by the founding fathers...it is how it was modified in 1836. It is not done that way in two states.

Yes it was. It was created to keep the large states from dictating to smaller states.
Here's what your favorite founding father wanted an electorial college for And yes Hamilton was one of the original founders lol
Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
YOU DON'T KNOW AS MUCH AS YOU THINK YOU DO. HELL YOU KNOW LESS.

 

[georgephillip]

She didn't win the majority of votes in 30 states which is what she needed to happen.

She won a majority of votes.
Period.
Geography is (still) irrelevant.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

She won a majority of votes.
Period.
Geography is (still) irrelevant.

She didn't win the majority in 30 states. Let's say you have a population in one state that has 100 million should one state dictate to 49? if you say yes that's a dictatorship

 

[georgephillip]

She didn't win the majority in 30 states. Let's say you have a population in one state that has 100 million should one state dictate to 49? if you say yes that's a dictatorship

Yet, each state elects its own governor, House members, and Senators, so why should POTUS not be determined by a direct national vote regardless of where each individual voter resides?

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Yet, each state elects its own governor, House members, and Senators, so why should POTUS not be determined by a direct national vote regardless of where each individual voter resides?

Because we have an electoral college that prevents large populated states from dictating to smaller states. Why even have a small state vote at all?