The country may split in two within my lifetime. Re ation seems to be accelerating.
Why do you want the popular vote to not count?
funny how you losers didn't cry about the EC during both terms of obomber's tenure.
Obama won the popular vote.
Legitimately.
Russia didn't help him.
Obama didn't need to dole out hush money payments to illegally influence the election.
Too bad a piece of racist like you is triggered hard by the above facts.
of course he did, but why weren't yall ing and moaning to end the EC before he got into office in 2008? if the EC is the culprit then why wasn't it an issue before his presidency that needed to be reformed/resolved?
Because he did not rig the election. Why protest when the election was won fair and square?
Since he won both popular and EC votes by substantial margins, what were you expecting?
you don't remember 2000 at all.
Was it all the LSD?
i didn't even do lsd in the 2000s... either way, yall are dumb as . if the EC has been a problem, it didn't just start during the 2016 election. why weren't yall calling to abolish it prior? as well, why weren't yall crying about deporting illegal aliens under obama or kids in cages? i know why but i'll let yall just keep being the hipsters yall are.
Was it all the LSD?
Popular vote always made more sense. Every persons vote should carry the same weight. People didn’t bother complaining about EC as long as the results mirrored the popular vote which they almost always do
There were other oddball proposals that sought to salvage congressional selection—for instance, to have congressmen draw lots to form a group that would then choose the executive in secret. But by July 25, it was clear to James Madison that the choice was down to two forms of popular election: “The option before us,” he said, “[is] between an appointment by Electors chosen by the people—and an immediate appointment by the people.” Madison said he preferred popular election, but he recognized two legitimate concerns. First, people would tend toward supporting candidates from their own states, giving an advantage to larger states. Second, a few areas with higher concentrations of voters might come to dominate. Madison spoke positively of the idea of an electoral college, finding that “there would be very little opportunity for cabal, or corruption” in such a system.
It is easy for Americans to forget that when we vote for president, we are really voting for electors who have pledged to support the candidate we favor. Civics education is not what it used to be. Also, perhaps, the Electoral College is a victim of its own success. Most of the time, it shapes American politics in ways that are beneficial but hard to see. Its effects become news only when a candidate and his or her political party lose a hard-fought and narrowly decided election.
So what are the beneficial effects of choosing our presidents through the Electoral College?
Under the Electoral College system, presidential elections are decentralized, taking place in the states. Although some see this as a flaw—U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren opposes the Electoral College expressly because she wants to increase federal power over elections—this decentralization has proven to be of great value.
For one thing, state boundaries serve a function analogous to that of watertight compartments on an ocean liner. Disputes over mistakes or fraud are contained within individual states. Illinois can recount its votes, for instance, without triggering a nationwide recount. This was an important factor in America’s messiest presidential election—which was not in 2000, but in 1876.
That year marked the first time a presidential candidate won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. It was a time of organized suppression of black voters in the South, and there were fierce disputes over vote totals in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Each of those states sent Congress two sets of electoral vote totals, one favoring Republican Rutherford Hayes and the other Democrat Samuel Tilden. Just two days before Inauguration Day, Congress finished counting the votes—which included determining which votes to count—and declared Hayes the winner. Democrats proclaimed this “the fraud of the century,” and there is no way to be certain today—nor was there probably a way to be certain at the time—which candidate actually won. At the very least, the Electoral College contained these disputes within individual states so that Congress could endeavor to sort it out. And it is arguable that the Electoral College prevented a fraudulent result.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/dange...toral-college/
I don't particularly have a problem with the EC, tbh... while in the past you could argue that it dilutes the individual vote, nowadays you can take a Soros bus, and make your vote count multiple times, including swing states, even if you're an illegal...
It's actually fairly hilarious that the same people that claim massive voter fraud are the same people supportive of the electoral college. A system that makes fraud on federal elections much more viable. You only need to rig 3-4 swing states to tilt and election, whereas, with popular vote, it's much more complicated on the whole.
With the makeup of the US between metropolis and rural areas, the EC does make sense, IMO. But, the reality is that popular vote is always a good trend indicator regardless. It becomes that much more difficult to win if the majority doesn't like you, even with an EC.
The economic expansion in the US dictates metro areas are going to continue to grow and expand, while rural areas will continue to dwindle. At that point the party that caters to rural people will have likely transformed to have broader appeal, coz the EC won't be enough.
You don't remember 2000 at all.
Was it all the LSD you did whenever you did all that LSD?
Also:
Did Qhris just quote a Hillsdale article?
lol Qhris
Losers have been ing about the EC since John Quincy Adams.
The key factor concerning the last election was how close The vote was.
Flip a coin, Donald wins. So about half the eligible voters voted for Trump.
It’s over. We have moved on and in my opinion it’s been a disaster.
But you don’t go back to the Democratic vote and just change it for the heck of it.
Arguments about the electoral college are fine. But don’t use it to get the prove that Trump stole an election, he won it, and it was very close.
Trump needs to address Russia’s actions during the election.
With the American people . But he hates the fact that it somehow delegitimizes his close victory.
I don't really see whats left to address about "Russian interference in the election".
As I remember it was:
1) Facebook ads
2) real DNC emails published by Wiki
did I miss anything?
Yeah, they may have influenced a few idiots on how to vote or non-vote but those were probably predisposed to start with if a freaking facebook ad could influence them.
I totally remember the lameness brought about by the 2000s.
I do.
Trump needs to have a press conference and come straight out with everything we know they have done, all the tidbits
He has NOT done this.
Beto looks ready to pack it in after tonight.
vote diffs in Pres elections. 2016 was close, but by far not the closest in last 50 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ar_vote_margin
Polling at 0% like the good little Beta that he is.
Beto looks ready to pack it in after tonight.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
