 |
|
03-20-2019, 05:16 PM
|
#301
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fast4522
By any measure, that is again the ultra liberal position.
|
And people from other countries in the world would end up having their vote counted. Even Burls would find a way.
Not many democrat runners with any positions, because they are becoming a 'FEEL' party. A nice personal touch candidate with apparent self confidence is really all they need.
Last edited by davew; 03-20-2019 at 05:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 05:26 PM
|
#302
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fast4522
By any measure, that is again the ultra liberal position.
|
Its the most pro-democracy position...
The Federal Government of today is a behemoth compared to what the forefathers wanted.
Why should a vote in Wyoming be worth more than a vote in New Hampshire?
__________________
Dumbest timeline confirmed...
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 05:45 PM
|
#303
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: near Philadelphia
Posts: 4,560
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
Its the most pro-democracy position...
The Federal Government of today is a behemoth compared to what the forefathers wanted.
Why should a vote in Wyoming be worth more than a vote in New Hampshire?
|
Why should a vote in California, New York and Illinois be worth more than the vote of the other '54' states?
Let's be honest that's the real end-game of those that want to eliminate the Electoral College -- to load up votes in just a handful of states to win presidential elections.
Secondly, when the Founders created this country they never envisioned a country that would later allow illegals the right to vote, or dead people, or even have the Supreme Court make legislative decisions that Congress is too stupid or too scared to make law or repeal.
Let's again be honest here. If Hillary! won the 2016 election, this talk would not be going on.
When hubby Bill won with <50 per cent of the popular vote, everyone said ... but he won the Electoral College, so it's OK ... he won with a plurality and did not win the 'popular' vote. No complaints and cries from Republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 05:54 PM
|
#304
|
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,819
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
There are a few way to do...
That one is still a bit undemocratic due to weighting but its a far cry better than what we have.
One thing I do like about that model is candidates can actually visit friendly states to them and hope to rack up the tallies in those states...
Would make for new and interesting campaigning.
|
This!
Right now, far too many people's votes count for nothing, other than to point out so and so won the popular vote! 
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 06:12 PM
|
#305
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckless
When hubby Bill won with <50 per cent of the popular vote, everyone said ... but he won the Electoral College, so it's OK ... he won with a plurality and did not win the 'popular' vote. No complaints and cries from Republicans.
|
The Republicans are not the whiny party.
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 06:28 PM
|
#306
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckless
Why should a vote in California, New York and Illinois be worth more than the vote of the other '54' states?
Let's be honest that's the real end-game of those that want to eliminate the Electoral College -- to load up votes in just a handful of states to win presidential elections.
Secondly, when the Founders created this country they never envisioned a country that would later allow illegals the right to vote, or dead people, or even have the Supreme Court make legislative decisions that Congress is too stupid or too scared to make law or repeal.
Let's again be honest here. If Hillary! won the 2016 election, this talk would not be going on.
When hubby Bill won with <50 per cent of the popular vote, everyone said ... but he won the Electoral College, so it's OK ... he won with a plurality and did not win the 'popular' vote. No complaints and cries from Republicans.
|
Absolutely everything in this post is  irrelevant,  incoherent, or  both...
__________________
Dumbest timeline confirmed...
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 06:35 PM
|
#307
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,069
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckless
Why should a vote in California, New York and Illinois be worth more than the vote of the other '54' states?
Let's be honest that's the real end-game of those that want to eliminate the Electoral College -- to load up votes in just a handful of states to win presidential elections.
Secondly, when the Founders created this country they never envisioned a country that would later allow illegals the right to vote, or dead people, or even have the Supreme Court make legislative decisions that Congress is too stupid or too scared to make law or repeal.
Let's again be honest here. If Hillary! won the 2016 election, this talk would not be going on.
When hubby Bill won with <50 per cent of the popular vote, everyone said ... but he won the Electoral College, so it's OK ... he won with a plurality and did not win the 'popular' vote. No complaints and cries from Republicans.
|
Each paragraph is factually correct.
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 06:57 PM
|
#308
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: donkeys ride from ASD
Posts: 13,002
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
Absolutely everything in this post is irrelevant, incoherent, or both... |
Just like that you lost my vote, you cant see the forest for the trees. 
ps: Hillary lost.
__________________
'complicated business folks, complicated business.'
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 07:13 PM
|
#309
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodtoo
Just like that you lost my vote, you cant see the forest for the trees.
ps: Hillary lost. |
Fast lives in the state of New Hampshire a state with 1.2 million people and 4 electoral votes.
Wyoming has 600k and 3 electoral votes.
A vote in Wyoming is more important than a vote in New Hampshire.
That's undemocratic....
__________________
Dumbest timeline confirmed...
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 07:22 PM
|
#310
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 14,471
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
Its the most pro-democracy position...
The Federal Government of today is a behemoth compared to what the forefathers wanted.
Why should a vote in Wyoming be worth more than a vote in New Hampshire?
|
The forefathers wanted the Electoral College to function exactly as it did in 2016. Any constitutional scholar, even a liberal one will tell you that. The next thing that they will tell you is that President Franklin D. Roosevelt also wanted to change it but because of the Constution of these United States it is near impossible for that to occur. You confuse pro-democracy positions of Europe with Pro-Republic positions of these United States, to which there are many.
Last edited by fast4522; 03-20-2019 at 07:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 07:26 PM
|
#311
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fast4522
The forefathers wanted the Electoral College to function exactly as it did in 2016. Any constitutional scholar, even a liberal one will tell you that. The next thing that they will tell you is that President Franklin D. Roosevelt also wanted to change it but because the Constution of these United States it is near impossible for that to occur. You confuse pro-democracy positions of Europe with Pro-Republic positions of these United States, to which there are many.
|
So by me saying the electoral college is undemocratic... you agree?
K... cool just checking.
__________________
Dumbest timeline confirmed...
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 07:29 PM
|
#312
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 14,471
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
So by me saying the electoral college is undemocratic... you agree?
K... cool just checking.
|
No, what I am saying is that we are a republic and have been all along.
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 07:33 PM
|
#313
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: donkeys ride from ASD
Posts: 13,002
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fast4522
No, what I am saying is that we are a republic and have been all along.
|
That's what I thought you meant.
__________________
'complicated business folks, complicated business.'
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 07:48 PM
|
#314
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fast4522
No, what I am saying is that we are a republic and have been all along.
|
Republic simply means instead of direct vote you elect representatives to enact laws/policies on your behalf.
Civics fail.
In our particular case when it comes to selecting President a vote in Wyoming is worth more than your vote in New Hampshire.
In America we have institutions that are highly Democratic (House) and others that aren't (Senate)... being a Republic means nothing when it comes to needing a "electoral college."
__________________
Dumbest timeline confirmed...
Last edited by elysiantraveller; 03-20-2019 at 07:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 08:04 PM
|
#315
|
|
Buckle Up
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
Absolutely everything in this post is irrelevant, incoherent, or both... |
A totally unbiased and non-personal opinion.....To be sure... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
