"Time for the Electoral College to Fall on its Sword"

[mobb_deep 917]

We're not a democracy.

And here we go round the mulberry bush... yawn.

[Mungwater 588]

But then they'd have to look in the mirror and recognize it was created to suppress the black vote in the South. And that's exactly what they want to keep doing, without having to admit it.

It wasn't to suppress the black vote, that wasn't even an option until 80 years after.

[Reality 2,710]

:yawn:

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

We're not a democracy.

 

Correct; we're a Representative Republic. But don't stop him, he's on a roll (and may melt).

[crackattack 513]

And here we go round the mulberry bush... yawn.

Yawn. Like wanting to end the Electoral College when democrats don't get their way :yawn:

[mobb_deep 917]

It wasn't to suppress the black vote, that wasn't even an option until 80 years after.

 

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

 

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

Totally dumb to have whoever gets the most votes win. That would be like every other democracy in the entire world. Wouldn't want that happening. What's next, the metric system!?!?

 

Most votes win. Democrats are great at the ground game, right? And by ground game I mean getting the dead to vote.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

 

Totally dumb to have whoever gets the most votes win. That would be like every other democracy in the entire world. Wouldn't want that happening. What's next, the metric system!?!?

In your solution, does the winner have to have a majority of the votes, or just the most? Think 3 or 4 candidates.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

 

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

 

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.

 

 

That was over 100 years before my ancestors got to this country. Sorry but I have no white guilt. I assume our founding fathers could see through the idea of 'Mob rules' (no pun intended) and knew liberals would fock it up.

[mobb_deep 917]

 

Most votes win. Democrats are great at the ground game, right? And by ground game I mean getting the dead to vote.

 

Because voter fraud only happens on the dem side. there's absolutely zero voter fraud or voter intimidation on the GOP.

 

It couldn't possibly be that republicans know the only way they can continue to be relevant is to continue drawing districts in their favor, and making retarded excuses to use antiquated voting methods, because they would lose a true majority vote every single election, regardless of how many dead people are or are not voting.

[Mungwater 588]

 

 

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

 

If the systems pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitutions first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

 

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

 

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the systems pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election. But Thatchers complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.

If by saying it was the rich guys that were presidents, you're right.

 

I was just saying it wasn't to suppress the black vote, you can't suppress something that didn't exist.

[Reality 2,710]

Republicans control House, check. Senate, check. 31 governorships, check. Me thinkie it ain't happening anytime soon.

Thanks Obama.

 

Democrats crying about Russia and the electoral college, refuse to look in the mirror. Good for us conservatives.

[posty 2,296]

Maybe it should be changed to the number of states won... I think this would force candidates to attend more of the states while campaigning... Now if they know a vote is close but the state only carries three electoral votes, why waste a trip (or spend money) to that state to try to win... If it counted as number of states won, maybe that will get the candidate and money in there... Also, that would mean that California and New York would be the same as Rhode Island and Alaska...

[mobb_deep 917]

Maybe it should be changed to the number of states won... I think this would force candidates to attend more of the states while campaigning... Now if they know a vote is close but the state only carries three electoral votes, why waste a trip (or spend money) to that state to try to win... If it counted as number of states won, maybe that will get the candidate and money in there... Also, that would mean that California and New York would be the same as Rhode Island and Alaska...

 

Great idea. 40 million votes should count the same as 1 million. Sounds right out of the republican playbook.

[Djgb13 2,338]

 

Great idea. 40 million votes should count the same as 1 million. Sounds right out of the republican playbook.

Well when over 3/4ths of those 40 million are dead or illegals....

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

 

Great idea. 40 million votes should count the same as 1 million. Sounds right out of the republican playbook.

Well, you're being dismissive of what United, or a union means. We would hardly be united if the heavy population areas controlled the Govt. The democrats have been fond of saying that people should vote their own interests. What makes you think they won't? Then what? The notion of checks and balances is more important than winning some elections. You don't grasp what this grand experiment has been and is all about.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Did Trump even campaign in CA, WA, or OR knowing that the majority would go to Hillary?

[crackattack 513]

Mike needs a safety pin emoji.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

Donna Brazile spent money to get out the vote in Chicago and other inner cities that HRC was assured to win becaise the fear was that HRC would win the electoral but lose the popular. No wonder they got the popular. They tried for it. Trump didnt. They didn't spend money in Michigan. They thought they had it on lock down. Dimbass linerals carrying water for the losers who lost this election. They screwed up, but Russians. Dummy's eating any line of shite that gets thrown at them

[BudBro 117]

Definitely too late to change it now, but definitely something that should be changed in the future. It's antiquated and completely unnecessary in the modern times. If every vote counts then surely every vote should actually count. Arguing the contrary is counter intuitive.

 

Actually, this argument is counter intuitive. The candidates would only be concerned about 5 or 6 metro areas in the country, where all the people live piled on top of each other. But everyone has explained this about 1000 times already, to include your 6th grade social studies teacher. One had to know this information to get into high school.

 

Just get a better candidate than Hilary. The party that hates black people picked an unqualified black man over Hilary to represent them 8 years ago. She had to cheat to beat a 98 year old socialist to even get the nod this time. Prolly should've seen this one coming, eh?

 

And...dem policies are terrible, so that needs to change also. But, other than that, you should be good.

 

How about we go by number of acres won? Or only allow those that own a home to vote?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

Budbro is right. The electoral college concept shoukd have been grasped by people a long time ago. By high school or 10th grade it should have been understood. I remember the discussion the day the teacher delved into it. When he explained all us kids thought it was wrong that the majority didn't rule. But we were kids after all. When he further explained it everyone got it. I guess I had a good teacher?

[Strike 3,975]

Libs,

Here is a good article by that right wing political hack site Politico on why Hitlery lost:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

 

Would probably be better to read that and try to understand it than try to change the electoral college. Maybe then you'll put up a better candidate who will run a better campaign next time.

[mobb_deep 917]

Well, you're being dismissive of what United, or a union means. We would hardly be united if the heavy population areas controlled the Govt. The democrats have been fond of saying that people should vote their own interests. What makes you think they won't? Then what? The notion of checks and balances is more important than winning some elections. You don't grasp what this grand experiment has been and is all about.

 

I realize this falls on def ears, as any sort of concession from your side would basically be admitting you're aware the elections are rigged in your favor. But, your argument is no different than me saying we would hardly be united, if population devoid areas received a disproportionate number of votes per capita (or electoral votes as it may). No matter how we cut the pie; be it electoral college or whatever the case is, the votes should reflect the number of people who voted. To have it any other way is the very reason so many people don't bother voting. Their vote truly does not matter.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

 

 

The problem is THAT every vote counts. Dead people, felons, illegal immigrants, etc.............all their votes count in certain areas because the officials in those areas allow it to. In California someone showed where 83 ballots in different names were mailed to 1 apartment. Not one apartment complex but ONE FOCKING APARTMENT. https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/california-83-blank-ballots-mailed-to-one-address/

 

Too much fockery on the left in sh!thole precincts where 100% voter turnout is reported. So no one is in the hospital or died near the election? NFW...........

 

How about this...............Picture ID and W-2 (you don't work, you don't vote) and you get to vote (provided you're not a Felon). Let's see if the Democrats win another focking election.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Libs,

Here is a good article by that right wing political hack site Politico on why Hitlery lost:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

 

Would probably be better to read that and try to understand it than try to change the electoral college. Maybe then you'll put up a better candidate who will run a better campaign next time.

You should try understanding that people understand she lost and can still think the EC is antiquated.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

Libs,

Here is a good article by that right wing political hack site Politico on why Hitlery lost:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

 

Would probably be better to read that and try to understand it than try to change the electoral college. Maybe then you'll put up a better candidate who will run a better campaign next time.

Great article. But they won't read it. Donna Brazile is a complete failure, as was anyone who worked on that train wreck of a campaign. I remember how pisssed I was when Kerry lost. For a couple of days I blamed the other side. Then I woke up and realized it was him and his handlers. Democrats might want to self reflect instead of falling for misdirection from the ones who choked. And Obama didn't help either with his BLM and bathroom nonsense and Obamacare and the refugees.

[Strike 3,975]

You should try understanding that people understand she lost and can still think the EC is antiquated.

 

Sure. That's why this thread was started today and not a few months ago.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Sure. That's why this thread was started today and not a few months ago.

Yeah...ok...good effort guy

[FeelingMN 273]

The EC worked just fine electing a black man to the office the past 8 years. So I'm not sure it really needs reworking just because an orange man was elected.

 

Fact is Hilary couldn't deliver Dem strongholds in the Rust Belt. Her "message" didn't resonate there. Trump's did. Pretty easy equation to solve.

 

And the last two successful Dem Presidential candidates were very, very good on the campaign trail. They were engaging and charismatic. Gore, Kerry, Hilary? Not even close. I think that has more to do with it than the system we currently have in place.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Fock can you all get past Trump vs Hillary and realize this isn't about them?

[cyclone24 1,814]

Sure. That's why this thread was started today and not a few months ago.

 

Exactly.....I'm sure they would care about the EC if Hillary won.....sure they would.

[Strike 3,975]

Fock can you all get past Trump vs Hillary and realize this isn't about them?

 

BS. This wasn't an issue until Hitlery choked the election. No reason for us to get past anything until you acknowledge that. Or else show me the previous threads on this. Because the only other thread I've seen lately was the one people bumped where you said Trump was toast before the election. I'd like to see the one where you lament the outdatedness of the electoral college.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

BS. This wasn't an issue until Hitlery choked the election. No reason for us to get past anything until you acknowledge that. Or else show me the previous threads on this. Because the only other thread I've seen lately was the one people bumped where you said Trump was toast before the election. I'd like to see the one where you lament the outdatedness of the electoral college.

Blah blah blah..,you keep trying kid. Maybe one day you will get there.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

 

BS. This wasn't an issue until Hitlery choked the election. No reason for us to get past anything until you acknowledge that. Or else show me the previous threads on this. Because the only other thread I've seen lately was the one people bumped where you said Trump was toast before the election. I'd like to see the one where you lament the outdatedness of the electoral college.

He's a hack incapable of being honest with himself, never mind you. The guy is never wrong or wrong minded. Just ask him.

[Strike 3,975]

Blah blah blah..,you keep trying kid. Maybe one day you will get there.

 

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

 

[Baker Boy 1,485]

The United States Constitution was made by the states, for the states. It is designed to not only create a more efficient federal government, but to also protect the interest of the states. HTH

[crackattack 513]

He's a hack incapable of being honest with himself, never mind you. The guy is never wrong or wrong minded. Just ask him.

Never wrong? Didn't he say Trump wouldn't win Wisconsin? Pennsylvania? Michigan? Or something like that.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

 

You are doing that all on your own

[Sho Nuff 719]

Never wrong? Didn't he say Trump wouldn't win Wisconsin? Pennsylvania? Michigan? Or something like that.

I never have claimed I am never wrong. RP is still just obsessed it appears.

[Mookz 1,287]

I would prefer that it be hoisted with its own petard.