Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Djgb13

Dems introduce bill to abolish Electoral College

Recommended Posts

I have always been a fan of the Electoral College, its what makes the leader of this nation unique

 

the fact that each state has a stake in the decision and there are more paths to win. Without it, NY and LA control the entire country

 

we are not a democracy, we are a republic, don't forget that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

F@ck off, limp d1ck.

 

That was ONE of the reasons, not the only reason. The other reason was to protect the smaller states, like I and others mentioned previously.

 

First off that was the main reason, that's why they had actual electors, rather than just a winner take all value assigned to each state.

 

You mean states with small civilian populations but with large slave populations, yes that also was a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a compromise?

 

We eliminate the Electoral College, but people on Welfare forfeit their right to vote, and any illegal caught voting gets hung by the neck.

 

Goddamm, I'm full of brilliant ideas!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, we did fight a war to NOT be like Brits, but you are correct, I have no idea how the Brits do it. Not sure I really care, though, because the Electoral College is a protection against the larger states controlling/dictating who runs the country.

 

Maybe you could summarize how the Brits do it?

Easy and less than 3 minutes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because idiots tend to gather in groups and dont speak for the rest of the country. You seen the map that shows ALL that red across the US and only some tiny specks of blue? Yea thats why. Founding fathers did it for a reason. Only focking retards would want to change that because they are piss poor losers. Their philosophy: *cant win? Change the rules so that you can*

 

Thank You! :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not why the founding fathers made the elector college. At the time our country was founded we had a group of people who believed in Congress electing the president and another group who believed in popular vote, as Congress picking the pres was too similar to what the brits did. Since we had no technology to quickly count votes across the entire electorate, they settled on the elector college. Thats why congressional leaders can still go against the popular vote of any given state. It has nothing to do with the piss poor useless states in middle America. Youre welcome for the history lesson. HTH.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not why the founding fathers made the elector college. At the time our country was founded we had a group of people who believed in Congress electing the president and another group who believed in popular vote, as Congress picking the pres was too similar to what the brits did. Since we had no technology to quickly count votes across the entire electorate, they settled on the elector college. Thats why congressional leaders can still go against the popular vote of any given state. It has nothing to do with the piss poor useless states in middle America. Youre welcome for the history lesson. HTH.

That's not accurate in even the most cursory of searches.

 

Or just a gross oversimplification.

 

https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not accurate in even the most cursory of searches.

 

Or just a gross oversimplification.

Whats your take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I edited my post with a link.

Some opinion piece written by some nobody. Great link.

 

ETA: The fact still remains that it all came down to a lack of technology. People had no way of knowing who was better qualified between Jim Bob the farmer from Virginia and John the banker from New York. We have this thing called technology now, so information is readily available to anyone. It has ZERO to do with crappy states being given a voice, as stated by several in this thread. California wasnt even a state until almost a century after the federalist papers were written. Someone should tell the moron who wrote your opinion piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some opinion piece written by some nobody. Great link.

 

ETA: The fact still remains that it all came down to a lack of technology. People had no way of knowing who was better qualified between Jim Bob the farmer from Virginia and John the banker from New York. We have this thing called technology now, so information is readily available to anyone. It has ZERO to do with crappy states being given a voice, as stated by several in this thread. California wasnt even a state until almost a century after the federalist papers were written. Someone should tell the moron who wrote your opinion piece.

Where are you getting YOUR "facts" here? There is literally no documentation or information to back up your claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some opinion by some nobody.

 

It has ZERO to do with crappy states being given a voice

Soooo....you are admitting that you are a nobody....and....you admit that California is a crappy state. I agree with your opinion. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You aren't going to reiterate it because you have no idea what those reasons were...

 

but just to help you out, the biggest reason was the founding fathers were afraid a stupid population could be manipulated by a demagogue spouting easy populist ideas... God could you imagine if that happened! :shocking:

 

It's an archaic system, it's design is no longer relevant since the electors are almost all entirely bound by the states results in a winner take all system that gives an inordinate amount of value to the least populated states.

 

It is sad how many people just subscribe to the notion that since we always done things one way, that's the only way to do them.

 

 

 

F@ck off, limp d1ck.

 

That was ONE of the reasons, not the only reason. The other reason was to protect the smaller states, like I and others mentioned previously.

 

 

That's not accurate in even the most cursory of searches.

 

Or just a gross oversimplification.

 

https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

 

So your link says....

 

 

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

 

 

So, when I said the biggest reason was because the founding fathers were afraid idiots would support a demagogue, I was 100% correct. Thanks for providing a link proving my argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, you are my biatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you getting YOUR "facts" here? There is literally no documentation or information to back up your claims.

Use your innerwebs. Or your own link. Whatever you prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So your link says....

 

 

So, when I said the biggest reason was because the founding fathers were afraid idiots would support a demagogue, I was 100% correct. Thanks for providing a link proving my argument.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, you are my biatch.

WTF are you talking about you moron? I said it was one of the reasons, not the only reason you retard.

 

Jesus you're dense. The only you got is your right hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use your innerwebs. Or your own link. Whatever you prefer.

My own link says nothing of the sort. Youre just making up at this point.

 

I'm asking you to back up your claim. It is upon you to provide the exact wording that backs up your claim, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own link says nothing of the sort. Youre just making ###### up at this point.

 

I'm asking you to back up your claim. It is upon you to provide the exact wording that backs up your claim, not me.

 

Hey Rtard, I said the Biggest reason in my post, not the only reason, so. all you did was prove that what I said was true and that you are in contention as one of the dumbest posters here.

 

I own you...your name is Toby, not Kunta Kinta, biatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some opinion piece written by some nobody.

When someone calls someone a "nobody", yet they themselves are a nobody, how do we proceed with this line of "reasoning"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next up, a bill to eliminate voting altogether.

Let's elect by clitoris size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's elect by clitoris size.

I self identify as a woman with my 12 inch "clit". When is my coronation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I self identify as a woman with my 12 inch "clit". When is my coronation?

We have a winner here!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey Rtard, I said the Biggest reason in my post, not the only reason, so. all you did was prove that what I said was true and that you are in contention as one of the dumbest posters here.

 

I own you...your name is Toby, not Kunta Kinta, biatch.

Hey, shonuff Jr, do you know how to read? I wasn't even addressing you.

 

You're as dumb as a box of rocks. GTFO and get to the kiddie table.

 

Maybe we'll let you back when you develop some reading and comprehension skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was one of the compromises that got smaller states to join the union and if nothing else, smaller states of today will keep it intact today for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the electoral college is good. But I also think if Trump lost the election but won the popular vote that he would be saying abolish it and everyone here would be agreeing. Its whatever suits the people in the moment, especially here.

100% nope. I voted for gore and when he lost I didn't call to abolish the EC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I find it interesting liberals think if there was no EC they would win more.

 

I'm not so sure. There are a lot of conservatives in Cali and NY who don't vote because they think it's a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't blame them. Dems have won the popular vote in every election since 92, with the one exception being in 04. Gore and Hillary would've won in 00/16 if not for the electoral college system.

This reads like it was typed by any villain at the end of every scooby doo episode after getting caught.

 

Dont forget about those pesky kids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't rule by majority. That's the very definition of tyranny. It's called tyranny of the majority. It's a way to oppress the minority and our founding fathers knew this. I personally don't want a handful of states dictating what the rest of the country should do.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority&ved=2ahUKEwinjrXZ-NbfAhXrxYMKHTrLCkEQmhMwDHoECA8QPQ&usg=AOvVaw1PArVQNrhUOD10MBiu6wQc&cshid=1546701679326

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you even imagine what the same idiot liberals on this board would say if trump won the popular vote but lost the electoral college? This is ridiculous in its hypocrisy.

 

They would be crying about tyranny and how the little people's vote didn't even count blah blah blah.

 

It's very simple. If you just had popular vote the communities that have basically wrecked their cities with liberal policies would make rules for the entire country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't rule by majority. That's the very definition of tyranny. It's called tyranny of the majority. It's a way to oppress the minority and our founding fathers knew this. I personally don't want a handful of states dictating what the rest of the country should do.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority&ved=2ahUKEwinjrXZ-NbfAhXrxYMKHTrLCkEQmhMwDHoECA8QPQ&usg=AOvVaw1PArVQNrhUOD10MBiu6wQc&cshid=1546701679326

 

Yeah, if only the founding fathers had put some kind of system of checks and balances against that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so funny how the ones who's whole existence stems off of their claim of being suppressed by the majority want to now use their majority to suppress the minority.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, if only the founding fathers had put some kind of system of checks and balances against that happening.

They did, it's just to bad it's one of the very "systems of checks and balances" Democrats want to abolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't blame them. Dems have won the popular vote in every election since 92, with the one exception being in 04. Gore and Hillary would've won in 00/16 if not for the electoral college system.

 

No, it just means the republicans would play a different political game to win. I think if the republicans shifted on education it would be enough to counteract the loss of the electoral college system. Currently, probably over 90% of people in higher education are democrats. If the republicans altered their platform and said that higher education was a national defense issue and rolled education into the federal budget, thereby shouldering the cost of it for students and teachers and universities, many of the voters in that system would shift into the GOP camp permanently and the GOP would start to capture a lot of votes they don't currently have. I don't think they'd have to change any other item on their platform because the education bureaucracy is massive and theyd grab so many voters by doing this they'd be perfectly fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did, it's just to bad it's one of the very "systems of checks and balances" Democrats want to abolish.

 

Sorry, but the system was designed with independent electors in mind---when the states made the electors bound by they voters, that check disappeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, but the system was designed with independent electors in mind---when the states made the electors bound by they voters, that check disappeared.

Electors can and do vote against the public.

 

 

The system was designed so voters wouldn't elect another king or put a total disaster in office.

 

Which is why Hillary had the most faithless EC voters since James Madison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, but the system was designed with independent electors in mind---when the states made the electors bound by they voters, that check disappeared.

Electors vote in line with popular vote 99% of the time.

 

"Since 1900, there have been only 16 faithless electors who defected for individual reasons, including the seven from Monday. Here's a rundown of who those 16 are and why they voted the way they did"

 

Almost like it's a non issue.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-faithless-electors-2016-story.html%3FoutputType%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwj2y6aCstffAhXi1IMKHftrDYUQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3JtU-8sBYQvjaHIGLWPM0o&ampcf=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electors vote in line with popular vote 99% of the time.

 

"Since 1900, there have been only 16 faithless electors who defected for individual reasons, including the seven from Monday. Here's a rundown of who those 16 are and why they voted the way they did"

 

Almost like it's a non issue.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-faithless-electors-2016-story.html%3FoutputType%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwj2y6aCstffAhXi1IMKHftrDYUQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3JtU-8sBYQvjaHIGLWPM0o&ampcf=1

 

Exactly, THE CHECK, was that electors wouldn't be bound by a populace that voted for a tyrant. So the check you were touting, that democrats want to eliminate no longer exists. Thanks for proving my point. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electors can and do vote against the public.

 

 

The system was designed so voters wouldn't elect another king or put a total disaster in office.

 

Which is why Hillary had the most faithless EC voters since James Madison.

 

And since then, laws have been put in place and upheld by SCOTUS to bind electors and most are 100% party diehards...so that purpose of the electoral college no longer is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honcho is clueless on this subject. Simply getting lost in his just wanting himself some Hillary syndrome. This is a very common problem that libs have. He is trying to complicate a simple system that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×