Reply With Quote
I don't think the Democrats are taking Hillary's loss very well.
If only Qhris would've stayed at school...
I don't think the Democrats are taking Hillary's loss very well.
The founders allowed every state to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit. That part is apparently missing from the video, so it can trigger Qhrisbots...
So you don't think it's perverting the process to water down the votes of the voters in those states?
The cognitive dissonance
What part of "The founders allowed every state to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit" is not clear? If the people in any of those states do not like that arrangement, they can also vote to change the authorities.So you don't think it's perverting the process to water down the votes of the voters in those states?
Good old democracy. What you don't like about it?
Plus, I don't get your complaint, Spurt... you were complaining how some electors might not want to select Trump in states he won. And you called that perverting the process.
So Democrats pull that move to avoid exactly the same thing you were complaining about, and it's wrong?
I don't think the founders had in mind unaccountable votes dictating my vote. Maybe you foolishly think that, or maybe you're just for perverting the process.
That's not at all why they did it. Geez, try a modi of intellectual honesty tonight.
How you feel about the founders doesn't matter at all. Everybody has an opinion. What matters is that the founders knew what they were doing because if they wanted States not to be able to choose as they wanted, they would've spelled it out. They didn't.
Presuming to know what the Founders were thinking 200+ years ago is stupid. What we have is what they wrote.
Why do you think they did it? I mean, the compact itself doesn't kick in unless exercising it does flip the election. It's not automatic.
Now, a great argument about this is if it's Cons utional under Article I, Section X... and I think that's much more debatable...
I actually think it would be difficult to ascertain this is not an interstate compact.
Rigging the popular vote is already what they do. If you're being honest with yourself, you'll come to terms.
Almost all states allot all their electoral votes to the winning candidate in that state, no matter how close the candidate's win.
Electors are typically required to pledge to vote for the winning candidate.
Your ing is entirely partisan and more in line with current realities than history. Heck, dubya won the popular vote 3 elections ago. Historically, the popular vote has swung around towards both parties more or less equally.
Your position is not uncommon though. Back in the 80s, Republicans were all in on the popular vote, because they had a popular president (And we're talking about Reagan, who passed the largest illegal alien amnesty this country has ever seen).
Even dating further back people have been generally against the Electoral College. See: https://news.gallup.com/poll/2323/Am...s-Elected.aspx
I stand by what I posted earlier, if voters don't like the arrangement, they can kick the state authorities out. Pure democracy. And let's not forget some of those states had GOP governors not long ago, not a stretch in the least.
The arrangement is entirely decided by the States. While traditionally it has been done as you mention, certain states like Maine or Nebraska have used different systems (ie: Proportional vote).
If we're talking about the Founders and ancient history, back in the 1800's electors were chosen by state legislatures, and, normally as a slate of partisan electors at that.
, if Trump wins the electoral vote, and he automatically wins California, you'll be lapping it up like no other.
derp's bolded buzzword blather
Jump-in buzzwording from Chump. Par.
There's just no counterpoint. The "I know better, believe me" has zero weight, plus it makes no sense to about it.
People complain about low voter turnout and how their vote don't count on solid blue/red states. But this actually changes the game in those states.
Any red vote on a blue state or the other way around all count towards the popular vote majority.
There's better arguments to be made about the legality of the arrangement, but in practical terms it doesn't help one party or the other. It does empower voters whose say was previously limited.
Not to mention that according to derp himself, Dennison is an extremely popular president. This arrangement literally turns the election into a popularity contest, so I don't get why acting scared of it.
There's plenty of evidence. But none of that suits your political leanings, obviously; and I don't waste time convincing someone that doesn't want to be convinced.
I'm right but I'm folding anyway just to prove how right I am!
lol derp
Chump making stuff up. Par.
lol dump
Jeez y'all this is , please stop
I'm sure the forefathers envisioned cities being the deciding vote for entire States on the other side of the country. Totally logical and not asinine.
They did. Just ask ElNono
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
