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

End winner take all in the electoral college and let the true voice of the people be heard.

middleview

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Nutty Cortez said:
Which is EXACTLY what the Founders did not want.

Popular vote you can BUY- even easier than it is now.

Texas State Republicans can promise Guns for every GOP vote.
California State can offer free sex changes for every Democrat Vote


I have yet to figure out why my leftist base wants to go to a King Like Popular Vote Democracy.

It's 50 SEPARATE little elections.

Win 2 states like Cali and NY and lose 48 states and win ? Nope.
Not what they wanted

Just like Hillary in 2016 It did NOT show she had more support nationwide, only that she is a candidate popular in one very populous state
Click to expand...
Yeah, kings are elected by popular vote....and you're a latino female.
 
middleview

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Raoul_Luke said:
That's not at all what I said. There were no "big cities" in the 1700s. They were trying to BALANCE political power between populated and un-populated areas. They were trying to keep the federal government from dominating the political agenda for the entire nation. They were trying to maintain the rights of the political minority from the tyranny of the 50% plus 1.

If what they actually wanted was for the popular vote to determine the Presidency, why didn't they simply set it up that way from the get go? Why do you think they needed you to figure out that that is, in fact, what they wanted, instead of what they, you know, actually set up?
Click to expand...
It really doesn't matter what they set up. That isn't what we have. Let me know if you want to return to what the original design was.

Meanwhile, the reason for it was primarily because the slave states were certain the free states would abolish slavery. The slave states fought for parity with free states right up until the civil war.

We don't have the issue of abolition to deal with now.

By the way, your post #190. This is exactly what you said.

Wait, what? How is that not a de facto elimination of the EC? It was put in the Constitution PRECISELY to do what you want to render it incapable of - allow the big cities to set the national agenda. I
 
Raoul_Luke

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
middleview said:
It really doesn't matter what they set up. That isn't what we have. Let me know if you want to return to what the original design was.

Meanwhile, the reason for it was primarily because the slave states were certain the free states would abolish slavery. The slave states fought for parity with free states right up until the civil war.

We don't have the issue of abolition to deal with now.

By the way, your post #190. This is exactly what you said.

Wait, what? How is that not a de facto elimination of the EC? It was put in the Constitution PRECISELY to do what you want to render it incapable of - allow the big cities to set the national agenda. I
Click to expand...
In effect. Not literally. Duh.
 
Spamature

Spamature

President
Raoul_Luke said:
It was hyperbole. Even someone as single mindedly partisan as you has to understand that there are almost no republican power extant in major city government. And the ones who are, like Bloomberg, are not really "republican" at all.
Click to expand...
But there has been and that means there can be in the future. Rudy Bloomberg and Riordan prove it. Even Trump and Hillary got votes from the other party.

Hell Bloomberg is a Republican in reality and he is even doing well in the Dem primary. It is really just entrenched right wing partisans like yourself who believe that neither a member of the Democratic Party, or a member of the Republican party can not cross party lines.
 
Raoul_Luke

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Spamature said:
But there has been and that means there can be in the future. Rudy Bloomberg and Riordan prove it. Even Trump and Hillary got votes from the other party.

Hell Bloomberg is a Republican in reality and he is even doing well in the Dem primary. It is really just entrenched right wing partisans like yourself who believe that neither a member of the Democratic Party, or a member of the Republican party can not cross party lines.
Click to expand...
Neither of those guys are real republicans, and you know it. Certainly not "conservatives." It only "proves" that the only "bipartisanship" that is acceptable to you lefties is when republicans start acting just like democrats.
 
Raoul_Luke

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
middleview said:
That is, literally, what you said. Seems like whenever you post something stupid you, like Trump, deny you said it, then say it wasn't what you meant.
Click to expand...
Yeah. after thinking about it, I was, as usual, 100% correct. There were the large population centers in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, and they were seeking to limit the ability of the residents of those population centers to impose their will on the rest of the nation, especially those who lived in rural states who lived completely different lives (then, as now) from those of the urban elites.
 
middleview

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Raoul_Luke said:
Wait, what? How is that not a de facto elimination of the EC? It was put in the Constitution PRECISELY to do what you want to render it incapable of - allow the big cities to set the national agenda. It's exact purpose is in keeping with the founders' intention that the federal government have limited power over the states (individuals).
Click to expand...
Just thought I'd preserve this in case you try to edit it or delete it.
 
middleview

middleview

President
Supporting Member
resident_evil said:
Do you think I'll bother? You haven't earned that kind of effort. In fact you lost it. ha ha
Click to expand...
What you meant is that you wouldn't want to admit you were wrong. Here is post #190

Raoul_Luke said:


Wait, what? How is that not a de facto elimination of the EC? It was put in the Constitution PRECISELY to do what you want to render it incapable of - allow the big cities to set the national agenda. It's exact purpose is in keeping with the founders' intention that the federal government have limited power over the states (individuals).

You don't have the integrity to admit you were wrong.
 
resident_evil

resident_evil

Senator
middleview said:
What you meant is that you wouldn't want to admit you were wrong. Here is post #190

Raoul_Luke said:


Wait, what? How is that not a de facto elimination of the EC? It was put in the Constitution PRECISELY to do what you want to render it incapable of - allow the big cities to set the national agenda. It's exact purpose is in keeping with the founders' intention that the federal government have limited power over the states (individuals).

You don't have the integrity to admit you were wrong.
Click to expand...
What do you think that proves? I wasn't following your discussion one bit. I just happened to read that one post and made my call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top