your evidence for this claim is pizzagate level stuff. good job
Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday.
The Detroit precincts are among those that couldn’t be counted during a statewide presidential recount that began last week and ended Friday following a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Democrat Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly prevailed in Detroit and Wayne County. But Republican President-elect Donald Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes or 47.5 percent to 47.3 percent.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ncts/95363314/
"But, but, muh popular vote!"
If it wasn't for fraud and illegals voting, Trump would have won the popular vote too.
your evidence for this claim is pizzagate level stuff. good job
80,000 people in three states, mattered more than the 2,700,000 that voted the other way.
If this had gone the other way, you would be screaming bloody murder.
Actually most illegals voted for Trump.
No I wouldn't, because unlike the left, I understand how the electoral system works in this country.
The Dems have had the state with the most electoral votes (California) on lock for decades since Reagan's amnesty betrayal, and they've had the state with the third-most electoral votes (New York) on lock forever. They start every election with an 84-38 head start in the three biggest states. And yet you don't see me complaining endlessly about that.
Has CA gerrymandered viciously, has CA disenfranchised Repugs?
CA has one Senator per 19M, while some red states have one Senator per a few 100K. Tyranny of the minority.
Bull .
I hate it when people lie to me so blatantly.
It's fine if you want to lie to yourself about it, but don't ask me to buy it.
Burqa Bou's ignorance is the textbook example of why we should have never stopped teaching civics in this country. There's a reason why Senate seats are apportioned the way they are. The Senate has always been intended to serve as the voice of the states, providing a necessary check and balance to the voice of the people through the House. That's why Senate seats are distributed evenly among the states while House seats are distributed by population.
Is there actually a defense to still having the electoral college that isn't completely laughable?
Uh..yeah. Wouldn't be a United STATES without it. You want to do away with the Senate too while you are at it? After all Wyoming's vote counts the same as California in there....same principle...
The states lost. They lost the civil war. They lost with the 14th amendment. They lost with the new deal. They lost with the civil rights-era cases that expanded the commerce clause. To think that we're still a republic the way we were in the 1780s is lunacy.
And that says nothing about the profoundly disenfranching effect the Electoral college has.
Last edited by vy65; 12-13-2016 at 01:25 PM.
doing away with the anti-proportional Senate's extreme imbalance of power favoring rural states is a great idea. CA Senator represents 19M people, rural state Senator represents a few 100K.
the problem is that USA is totally constipated and incapable of change, primarily because the VRWC (white males) has abused govt and defends its abuse by buying judges and politicians.
Wyoming: 1 electoral vote per 194,717 people
California: 1 electoral vote per 705,454 people
that's only important every 4 years. what's MUCH WORSE is excessive legislative power every year:
CA 19.0 M / senator
WY 0000.3 M / senator
If you guys want the Senate to be exactly the same as the House, why bother even having a bicameral legislature? Might as well either merge the two or fold the Senate entirely.
I'd be totally fine with that. I don't really see the purpose bicameralism serves today.
goddam, you're stupid
why have a horribly disproportional Senate?
That was a way to get rural regions to become states and join the Union in the 19th century.
Now they run the show.
It's ed up, and VRWC is using it to up America to VRWC's enrichment.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-13-2016 at 01:41 PM.
The idea, at least in America and other countries with similar systems, is to give the people a voice while also allowing for second thoughts and more deliberation.
Repugs having second thoughts are primaried and purged.
Any evidence of Senate Repugs recently given to second thoughts and more deliberation?
Eh, not with respect to the senate or the electoral college. Those ins utions exist to give the states -- not the people -- a more direct voice in governance. I don't think it meant anything about being more diligent in policy making. Bicameralism for America meant the states and the people having equal say in governance. After 200 years of some pretty profound changes in government, law, and society, I don't see a point in giving the states a seat at the table.
You really need to shut the up. Grown ups are talking.
you're the last one I'd expect to address the topic.
Repugs having second thoughts are primaried and purged.
Any evidence of Senate Repugs recently having second thoughts and more deliberation?
Californians aren't people
But we still have the Senate. And the House. And State governments.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of eliminating the EC (though it does need to be rebalanced), I just don't really get the State argument for an individual Federal office.
yeah because having ted cruz stand for 20 hours and read Green Eggs and Ham in the name of states rights is really what this country needs
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)