Rewind: Trump had one the Popular Vote but Lost the Electoral College

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Sable
How many liberals would have his side saying well he won the popular vote, he's the real president and we need to remove the electoral college.

Surtur
No doubt plenty would be chanting at Hilary that she wasn't their president. It'd be downright hypocritical if they wouldn't, and leftists aren't hypocrites.

Yeah, I had to make sure I wasn't drinking anything when I typed that, otherwise I'd have spit it out all over my monitor lol.

They'd praise it. The leftists who disagree with the EC might not praise it, but they'd keep the fact they disagree quiet.

I also can guarantee that the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, etc. would all have at least one article extolling the virtues of the EC, saying why it was necessary, saying how it "did what it was supposed to do" by keeping Trump out.

You definitely would not see leftists introducing bills to do away with the EC lol.

Sable
Oh yea, CNN and the whole dirty dozen would be for sure extolling the virtues of the EC, they would run polls, focus groups, slanted their way of coarse to show how ignorant and stupid you would be to not support the constitution and electoral college.

They would be calling the Trump people a bunch of lawless heathens who know nothing about the system. They would say "Trump knew the rules before he ran."

Hillary would be on camera saying how dumb of an idea it is to get rid of the EC.

Afro Cheese
There are two things to address here:

1) As I've pointed out before, had the popular vote been the rule of the game then the election would've been different in many ways. The campaign strategies on each side would've been different, and the voter turnout would've likely been different. So there is no way of knowing who would've won.

2) That being said... this is the 2nd time in recent decades a Democrat has lost in the electoral college while carrying the popular vote. And it seems the electoral college inherently favors Republicans to a certain extent because it gives rural states more voting power. So it makes sense that Democrats are frustrated with that system. Especially since the original logic that went into creating the system was (IIRC) based on the agrarian nature of the country and was basically to ensure that farmers had the kind of political sway that would match their important role in American society. But that farmer class has largely diminished and will continue to do so as technology advances. So it seems outdated in that way as well.

Robtard
Whining based on speculation and imagined scenarios. Good thread thumb up

ps The electoral college needs to go; no, not just because of Trump. It was stupid before he ran. One citizen = one vote, that's how we should decide.

Sable
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
There are two things to address here:

1) As I've pointed out before, had the popular vote been the rule of the game then the election would've been different in many ways. The campaign strategies on each side would've been different, and the voter turnout would've likely been different. So there is no way of knowing who would've won.

2) That being said... this is the 2nd time in recent decades a Democrat has lost in the electoral college while carrying the popular vote. And it seems the electoral college inherently favors Republicans to a certain extent because it gives rural states more voting power. So it makes sense that Democrats are frustrated with that system. Especially since the original logic that went into creating the system was (IIRC) based on the agrarian nature of the country and was basically to ensure that farmers had the kind of political sway that would match their important role in American society. But that farmer class has largely diminished and will continue to do so as technology advances. So it seems outdated in that way as well.


But just based on the opposite happening, and the premise of the OP. Would the liberals call Trump the true President for winning the popular vote?

Afro Cheese
Who cares?

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Whining based on speculation and imagined scenarios. Good thread thumb up

ps The electoral college needs to go; no, not just because of Trump. It was stupid before he ran. One citizen = one vote, that's how we should decide.

Thats not what this is, if the situation was reversed what would have happened. Its not as if we can't really tell.

Robtard
Who in the **** is saying Trump needs to be removed because he lost the popular vote? If you don't have a valid answer here, then your entire premise falls flat.

He won with the rules at play, as shitty as they are, that's not his fault.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Who in the **** is saying Trump needs to be removed because he lost the popular vote? He won with the rules at play, as shitty as they are, that's not his fault.

Maxine Waters, Al Green, Joy Baher, Whoopi Golberg, Hillary Clinton.

If Hillary had won the way Trump ran, would the rules be shitty then?

Robtard
*needs citation*

To your edit: Yes, the EC is crap and was crap before 2016.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Whining based on speculation and imagined scenarios. Good thread thumb up

ps The electoral college needs to go; no, not just because of Trump. It was stupid before he ran. One citizen = one vote, that's how we should decide.

You can still answer the question though. Would all the leftists whining over it still be whining if it gave Hilary a victory?

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
You can still answer the question though. Would all the leftists whining over it still be whining if it gave Hilary a victory?

I'd rather not play your imaginary "what if?" games as a means to feel better about your own shortcomings, Surt. You can pretend away though.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
I'd rather not play your imaginary "what if?" games as a means to feel better about your own shortcomings, Surt. You can pretend away though.

I feel like you answer this way because you know the answer is "no".

Sable

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
*needs citation*

To your edit: Yes, the EC is crap and was crap before 2016.

But no one here would be saying Trump should be president.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
I'd rather not play your imaginary "what if?" games as a means to feel better about your own shortcomings, Surt. You can pretend away though.

I guarantee you if Bash or Steve Zodiac posted a thread posing a hypothetical you wouldn't be acting like this.

Surtur
The funny thing is almost IMMEDIATELY after the election was over the Clintons began investigating it lol. The legitimacy of the victory, I mean. This is why weeks later they were very slow to come out and support Jill Stein's pathetic attempt at recounts and shit, because they had found *nothing* and knew it was pointless.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like you answer this way because you know the answer is "no".

Originally posted by Sable
But no one here would be saying Trump should be president.

If you can pretend one scenario, then the opposite pretend scenario is just as valid. So yes, according to your rules every Trumper would be calling for Trump to be president if he had lost, but won the pop vote. See how that works?

Sable
Jill Steins recount helped Trump actually, she paid for it, he got more votes, and solidified the fact no Russians voted.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
If you can pretend one scenario, then the opposite pretend scenario is just as valid. So yes, according to your rules every Trumper would be calling for Trump to be president if he had lost, but won the election. See how that works?

How many would be in the streets every weekend in DC protesting?

Bashar Teg
what a weird poll.

but seriously, who was the last president that zero people protested? probably wore knickerbockers.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
I guarantee you if Bash or Steve Zodiac posted a thread posing a hypothetical you wouldn't be acting like this.

Using your same logic, then you and Surtur would be insisting for Trump to be president due to his pop vote win. See how pretend scenarios work?

Surtur
Originally posted by Sable
Jill Steins recount helped Trump actually, she paid for it, he got more votes, and solidified the fact no Russians voted.

Oh but they were intended to do the opposite of helping Trump. She wanted to raise money, but also I think she was reeling from some folk blaming her for the loss, that she took away votes(everybodys at fault but Hilldog). She was hoping her investigations would uncover something and she could claim she helped Hilary in that regard.

The funny thing is it was only states Hilary lost in she wanted recounted, and when rumblings in one of the states about democratic voter fraud came out she dropped the effort.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Using your same logic, then you and Surtur would be insisting for Trump to be president due to his pop vote win. See how pretend scenarios work?

No because I respect the EC, you don't.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Using your same logic, then you and Surtur would be insisting for Trump to be president due to his pop vote win. See how pretend scenarios work?

But thing is, I don't think we would have dipshits chanting in the streets "not my president" over it. I truly do not lol.

So it is pretty clear at this point you know the liberals would be singing its praises. Nice.

Sable

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
No because I respect the EC, you don't.

But we're using pretend scenarios, so you would.

I've also not called for Trump's presidency to be invalid because he lost the popular vote; in fact I said he won with the rules at play so it's valid. Weird.

Sable
No, the pretend scenario does mean it automatically flips my opinion on the electoral college.

I never said you said the Trump presidency is invalid, so I dunno where you to that from.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable


Not of those quotes say Trump needs to go because of his EC win and pop vote loss. So?

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Not of those quotes say Trump needs to go because of his EC win and pop vote loss. So?

So why did he need to go right after he was elected? Because donuts?

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
But thing is, I don't think we would have dipshits chanting in the streets "not my president" over it. I truly do not lol.

So it is pretty clear at this point you know the liberals would be singing its praises. Nice.

^ Surtur's logic doesn't apply to himself, only liberals and "leftist".

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
So why did he need to go right after he was elected? Because donuts?

Afaic, no one called for Trump's impeachment due to him losing the popular vote. That's not an impeachable offense. You're just making things up now to fit the weird topic you're trying to force

In regards to Maxine Waters, she was saying it in regards to Russiagate.

Surtur
Originally posted by Sable
No, the pretend scenario does mean it automatically flips my opinion on the electoral college.

I never said you said the Trump presidency is invalid, so I dunno where you to that from.

I just truly do not believe you'd see people on the streets saying "not my president" like we saw with Trump.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Afaic, no one called for Trump's impeachment due to him losing the popular vote. That's not an impeachable offense. You're just making things up now to fit the weird topic you're trying to force

No my OP never mentioned anything of the sort, you strawmaned me and I decided to play along. Game over.

OP

Originally posted by Sable
How many liberals would have his side saying well he won the popular vote, he's the real president and we need to remove the electoral college.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Surtur's logic doesn't apply to himself, only liberals and "leftist".

This is a hypothetical about how the left would react, and I am giving my opinion on how I feel the right would react too.

I just don't see them protesting in the streets, not at the same magnitude we saw.

I also honestly do not remember the nights following Obama winning, did we see as much violence and destruction from conservatives after that, as we saw from the left after Trump?

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
I just truly do not believe you'd see people on the streets saying "not my president" like we saw with Trump.

Lolz. Then you're a dunce. Cos it happened with Obama.But sure, go on playing special victim cos Trump

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Lolz. Then you're a dunce. Cos it happened with Obama.But sure, go on playing special victim cos Trump

It happened at the same magnitude? And for as long?

Citation?

EDIT: I'll check it out tomorrow if you provide it, as I'm heading out for the night.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
No my OP never mentioned anything of the sort, you strawmaned me and I decided to play along. Game over.

OP

Um, that's what you were pushing, I then asked "Who in the **** is saying Trump needs to be removed because he lost the popular vote", you listed "Maxine Waters, Al Green, Joy Baher, Whoopi Golberg, Hillary Clinton", I asked for citation, you gave some that had nothing to do with that and here we are.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Who in the **** is saying Trump needs to be removed because he lost the popular vote?

Wrong, this is a straw man, as I never mentioned anything before this about anyone wanting him removed. Now just accept it, you got caught move on.

Surtur
Before I go Rob you seem super pissed off. You need a change of shorts?

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
It happened at the same magnitude? And for as long?

Citation?

Yeah, not playing your goal post moving games anymore, cos you'll just keep upping the requirements every time you're proven wrong. You always do this.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Before I go Rob you seem super pissed off. You need a change of shorts?

^ Surtur thinks he's clever here using the "you mad!" diversion tactic

Surtur
Ha thought so, have a good night and change those shorts, nobody likes sitting in poop thumb up

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Surtur thinks he's clever here using the "you mad!" diversion tactic

Well you do seem a little pissed as you came out of the gate cussing and strawmaning me.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
Well you do seem a little pissed as you came out of the gate cussing and strawmannirg me.

Oh, you too. Was expected though.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Who in the **** is saying Trump needs to be removed because he lost the popular vote? If you don't have a valid answer here, then your entire premise falls flat.

He won with the rules at play, as shitty as they are, that's not his fault.

Dude, this is a straw man!

Robtard
Wrong. That was the narrative you pushed and you responded with multiple people who allegedly did it and then with quotes. When I showed said quotes were about something else, you then started yelling "strawman". It's all on page one and two.

Sable
You are right, its all on the first page, easy to follow the straw man

Originally posted by Sable
How many liberals would have his side saying well he won the popular vote, he's the real president and we need to remove the electoral college.
Originally posted by Robtard
Whining based on speculation and imagined scenarios. Good thread thumb up

ps The electoral college needs to go; no, not just because of Trump. It was stupid before he ran. One citizen = one vote, that's how we should decide.
Originally posted by Sable
Thats not what this is, if the situation was reversed what would have happened. Its not as if we can't really tell.
Originally posted by Robtard
I'd rather not play your imaginary "what if?" games as a means to feel better about your own shortcomings, Surt. You can pretend away though.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who in the **** is saying Trump needs to be removed because he lost the popular vote? If you don't have a valid answer here, then your entire premise falls flat.


^^STRAWMANED

cdtm
Originally posted by Robtard
Whining based on speculation and imagined scenarios. Good thread thumb up

ps The electoral college needs to go; no, not just because of Trump. It was stupid before he ran. One citizen = one vote, that's how we should decide.

If people voted as individuals, sure.

They don't though.. Tribalism/local level identity politics make lesser populated states at the mercy of heavily populated ones.

The fact, say, New Yorkers/Californians denigrate flyover states or shore up their state as the best city in the world (Or a very close second to London) should be proof enough each state has an identity, rivalry, and associated biases that would change voter needs and affect voting patterns..

Robtard

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Who in the **** is saying Trump needs to be removed because he lost the popular vote? If you don't have a valid answer here, then your entire premise falls flat.

He won with the rules at play, as shitty as they are, that's not his fault.

Nope, this is a strawman and I played your game. Rob you are not winning this one, at all. You tried to say I said "Who in the **** is saying Trump needs to be removed because he lost the popular vote?"

I never claimed that, so you misrepresented my argument in order to make it easier to attack.

Just concede or we can do this for the next 5 hours if you chose. The quotes don't lie.

Robtard
Originally posted by cdtm
If people voted as individuals, sure.

They don't though.. Tribalism/local level identity politics make lesser populated states at the mercy of heavily populated ones.

The fact, say, New Yorkers/Californians denigrate flyover states or shore up their state as the best city in the world (Or a very close second to London) should be proof enough each state has an identity, rivalry, and associated biases that would change voter needs and affect voting patterns..

'tribalism" doesn't go away either way. So it's irrelevant.

Why does a state like Colorado deserve the same voting power as one like California when it has an 8th of the population? Why is every single Coloradian (sp?) worth 8 Californians in voting power/needs?

One citizen = one vote is as fair as it gets. The EC won't go away though, as it clearly always favors the Republican party.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
'tribalism" doesn't go away either way. So it's irrelevant.

Why does a state like Colorado deserve the same voting power as one like California when it has an 8th of the population? Why is every single Coloradian (sp?) worth 8 Californians in voting power/needs?

One citizen = one vote is as fair as it gets. The EC won't go away though, as it clearly always favors the Republican party.

So since the Media favors the Democratic Party, should that go to in your opinion to make everything fair is square? After all the media is shitty as well.

Robtard
"The Media" has nothing to do with citizen votes and equality of votes. Weird. Besides, it's not like Trumpers listen to CNN, as example of why what you said is irrelevant and weird. But I think you know that and are trying to muddle the point because you don't have a proper response.

Say it with me, one citizen = one vote. What are you scared of?

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
"The Media" has nothing to do with citizen votes and equality of votes. Weird.

Correct, but the media easily helps to manipulate peoples votes. Remember Russian Trolls on Facebook apparently affected peoples votes. So by the same measure, so does the media.

CNN is the least rated cable news network and the least trusted. Nick At Night reruns beat it. CNN isnt the only news outlet.

Robtard
Now you're conflating "the media" with the belief in widespread fake news stories by a foreign power in order to influence the election one way. Weird.

Say it with me, one citizen = one vote. What are you scared of?

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard

Say it with me, one citizen = one vote. What are you scared of?

No I don't believe in that, I believe in the Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. I don't believe in hoarding votes in major population centers controlled by Democrats with easy access to welfare and free money and forgetting about everyone else.

cdtm
Originally posted by Robtard
'tribalism" doesn't go away either way. So it's irrelevant.

Why does a state like Colorado deserve the same voting power as one like California when it has an 8th of the population? Why is every single Coloradian (sp?) worth 8 Californians in voting power/needs?

One citizen = one vote is as fair as it gets. The EC won't go away though, as it clearly always favors the Republican party.

Because states have different needs. And state identity is built right into the system.

So Colorado totally has as much of a right to federal access as California.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Now you're conflating "the media" with the belief in widespread fake news stories by a foreign power in order to influence the election one way. Weird.

Say it with me, one citizen = one vote. What are you scared of?

If a foreign power as you believe swayed votes, how could the local propaganda media not sway votes?

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
No I don't believe in that, I believe in the Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. I don't believe in hoarding votes in major population centers controlled by Democrats with easy access to welfare and free money and forgetting about everyone else.

Ergo you don't believe in citizen equality. Why one person's vote counts as less, because you know the EC typically only helps one party and it's not the Democrat party.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Sable
No I don't believe in that, I believe in the Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. I don't believe in hoarding votes in major population centers controlled by Democrats with easy access to welfare and free money and forgetting about everyone else. thats a clever way of saying that you want to gimp the side you don't support.

Sable
Not really, I don't support hording people in population centers, supplying them with everything they need for votes. And forgetting about the people that feed them, such as the "fly over states."

Robtard
Originally posted by cdtm
Because states have different needs. And state identity is built right into the system.

So Colorado totally has as much of a right to federal access as California.

Ergo not all citizens are equal :/

cdtm
Originally posted by Robtard
Ergo not all citizens are equal :/



My friend, you're being facetious.

And thanks, I've been wanting to use that word for the longest time, but couldn't find an opportunity. Happy Dance

Robtard
Humor aside, it's true what I said. We do not have voting equality with the EC in place. The Founders would shit themselves harder than Surtur does whenever SteveZodiac post if they saw how skewed the EC is now in regards to voting equality citizen per citizen.

Bashar Teg
"THREE ****ING MILLION!?!?" -founding fathers

Robtard
Granted, they'd also shit themselves knowing Black people and women could vote, but that's an aside to the citizen equality issue in the general scope of things

jaden101
If every election brings up the same debate regardless of who won then considering changing the system is probably a good idea. The problem is it'll never happen because whoever wins has the power to change it but no motivation to do so.

Bashar Teg
https://i.imgur.com/o2VNyyn.png

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Granted, they'd also shit themselves knowing Black people and women could vote, but that's an aside to the citizen equality issue in the general scope of things

Another faint swipe at the founding fathers.

Bashar Teg
our sacred and holy founding fathers, hallowed be their names

Sable
Yea **** them right, **** everything.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
https://i.imgur.com/o2VNyyn.png

Oh Trumpers...

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
Another faint swipe at the founding fathers.

You realize that many of them were slaves owners and did not view women as equals. So you're be silly again here.

Sable
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbUt7TfW8AAmz_p.jpg:large

Oh Clintons

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
You realize that many of them were slaves owners and did not view women as equals. So you're be silly again here.

As literally did every other country on earth at that time and beforelaughing out loud

But please, tell me how this is different!laughing out loud

cdtm
Originally posted by Robtard
Humor aside, it's true what I said. We do not have voting equality with the EC in place. The Founders would shit themselves harder than Surtur does whenever SteveZodiac post if they saw how skewed the EC is now in regards to voting equality citizen per citizen.

A british guy said it best: "America is like 50 countries."

If the founders wanted pure democracy, they wouldn't have set up this representative system in the first place.

Sure, technically all people do NOT have an equal vote for the feds.. Instead, they have an equal vote to sway their state.

Because state power was an even bigger deal then federal power when the founders made this mess. I'm not sure we can do direct democracy even if we wanted to (Although there's that multi state pact that's trying to work its way around the issue.)

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
As literally did every other country on earth at that time and beforelaughing out loud

But please, tell me how this is different!laughing out loud

Did I claim anything of the sort? No, I did not. See, that's a strawman argument

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Did I claim anything of the sort? No, I did not. See, that's a strawman argument

Which is exactly what you did to me earlier and are still in denial of it. But what I did wasn't a straw man. Because I did not misrepresent your argument, you did mine. I simply stated we were no different then anyone else and the idea America is some horrible nation because women, slaves, etc, this is how the entire world was, so its fcking pathetic America has to tear down everything now because of it.

but SM said it best

Originally posted by Silent Master
I do find it interesting that for the most part, people that wonder what the big deal is because it's just a flag/anthem are the same ones that agree with removing statues/flag and vice versa.

Robtard
Originally posted by cdtm
A british guy said it best: "America is like 50 countries."

If the founders wanted pure democracy, they wouldn't have set up this representative system in the first place.

Sure, technically all people do NOT have an equal vote for the feds.. Instead, they have an equal vote to sway their state.

Because state power was an even bigger deal then federal power when the founders made this mess. I'm not sure we can do direct democracy even if we wanted to (Although there's that multi state pact that's trying to work its way around the issue.)

Sorry, but one-citizen-one-vote would be the highest form of "state power", as a citizen can move to another state, take up legal residence and then vote from that state. You don't get any more fair and democratic than that, giving the power directly to the citizen above both the state and federal level. Isn't that what Republicans always claim to want? Power to the individual over the government in decision making laws.

One citizen = one vote, you know it's the most American and patriotic thing to do. Admit it already.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Robtard
Whining based on speculation and imagined scenarios. Good thread thumb up

ps The electoral college needs to go; no, not just because of Trump. It was stupid before he ran. One citizen = one vote, that's how we should decide.
I disagree, true democracies are among the worst forms of govenment an that's the direction disolving the electoral college would take us in.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, but one-citizen-one-vote would be the highest form of "state power", as a citizen can move to another state, take up legal residence and then vote from that state. You don't get any more fair and democratic than that, giving the power directly to the citizen above both the state and federal level. Isn't that what Republicans always claim to want? Power to the individual over the government.

One citizen = one vote, you know it's the most American and patriotic thing to do. Admit it already.

If it was the American and patriotic thing to do, thats how America would have been set up. No one is forcing you to stay or participate in a system you don't agree with.

Robtard
Originally posted by darthgoober
I disagree, true democracies are among the worst forms of govenment an that's the direction disolving the electoral college would take us in.

^ Chinese Communist in full display.

Sable
Originally posted by darthgoober
I disagree, true democracies are among the worst forms of govenment an that's the direction disolving the electoral college would take us in.

Liberals usually believe in True Democracy (mob rule) over Representative Democracy.

Capitalism over Socialism

Big Government over Small Govy

Atheism over God

Killing Babies over Saving them

Islam over Christianity

Identity Politics over American Culture

Division over unity

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Chinese Communist in full display.

Actually the Electoral College and Representative Democracy is American, not Chinese.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
If it was the American and patriotic thing to do, thats how America would have been set up. No one is forcing you to stay or participate in a system you don't agree with.

Um, America is all about dissenting opinions and change if it's deemed worthy. Hell, even our Constitution is open to change; they're called amendments.

What you implied is about the most un-American thing one can say, "don't like it, then leave!".

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
Liberals usually believe in True Democracy (mob rule) over Representative Democracy.

Capitalism over Socialism

Big Government over Small Govy

Atheism over God

Killing Babies over Saving them

Islam over Christianity

Identity Politics over American Culture

Division over unity

^ Full insanity in display

BackFire
I think you'd see mostly the same arguments being made against the EC, but probably from different people.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Um, America is all about dissenting opinions and change if it's deemed worthy. Hell, even our Constitution is open to change; they're called amendments.

What you implied is about the most un-American thing one can say, "don't like it, then leave!".

Trying to change America cause you don't like the rules to win is un American. Yes its open to amendments, when is the last one that has been passed exactly, they are very hard to get done.

Requirements for an ammendment:
A constitutional convention
The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or.
State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.

I dont think you will like the next one because republicans only need to win like 6 more states to have one. Be careful what you wish for.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
Trying to change America cause you don't like the rules to win is un American. Yes its open to amendments, when is the last one that has been passed exactly, they are very hard to get done.

A constitutional convention
The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or.
State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.

Do we forget that Segregation ended in 1964, that is modern history.

Let me guess, Civil Rights activist were un-American cos they wanted change to the current rules?

Sable
I said rules to win as in the EC, stop being cute.

Robtard
Making one citizen= one vote affects every citizen equally. So it's as fair as it gets, as everyone becomes equal. Do you hate equality now?

darthgoober
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Chinese Communist in full display.
lol communism is for the SJWs, I'm all for people being allowed to earn and keep their own stuff. That's actually one of risks one runs with a "true democracy" where everything in the country is decided by popular vote. A group majority might decide to take property and/or legal rights from a minority group and vote towards that effect.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Chinese Communist in full display.

You do realize know liberals here in the "Which government type is better" thread we're trying to justify and talk up communism?

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Making one citizen= one vote affects every citizen equally. So it's as fair as it gets, as everyone becomes equal. Do you hate equality now?

Nice strawmanthumb up

Robtard
Originally posted by darthgoober
lol communism is for the SJWs, I'm all for people being allowed to earn and keep their own stuff. That's actually one of risks one runs with a "true democracy" where everything in the country is decided by popular vote. A group majority might decide to take property and/or legal rights from a minority group and vote towards that effect.

That's why we have a system of checks and balances, where if someone wanted to bring back segregation in a given state like say in Kentucky and it won by popular vote, it would be shot down.

But your slippery-slope aside, how do you see this evil happening with removing the EC and given each citizen equal voting power in regards to electing their next president?

Sable
It's only a slipper slope when it's on the other side I noticed

Robtard
Originally posted by Sable
You do realize know liberals here in the "Which government type is better" thread we're trying to justify and talk up communism?

Actually I don't and they were probably ****ing with you, would be my guess

Originally posted by Sable
It's only a slipper slope when it's on the other side I noticed

Then you noticed incorrectly.

BackFire
You don't even need to eliminate the EC, just make it more accurately represent the people that it's supposed to represent. If a candidate can lose the popular vote by a few million but win the EC by like 70 or whatever it was, then it stands to reason that maybe the system isn't accurately representing the people. It's counting some votes way more than others simply because of what chunk of land they live in, there's really no reason for that.

I seem to remember DDM, shortly after the election, doing the math and showing that using the current system is the only way that could really happen.

One very simple thing that could improve it without eliminating the EC is to make the electorals based on percentage. So instead of winner take all, if you win 60% of the popular in a state, you get 60% of the electorals. This would allow for a more accurate representation of the state, and the nation as a whole, without putting it all in a national popular vote system, which would probably have another set of problems to deal with.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Robtard
That's why we have a system of checks and balances, where if someone wanted to bring back segregation in a given state like say in Kentucky and it won by popular vote, it would be shot down.

But your slippery-slope aside, how do you see this evil happening with removing the EC and given each citizen equal voting power in regards to electing their next president?
My slippery slope is exactly my point though. People are already in favor of taking property and legal rights from others, Antifa(and others, I'm not singling them out here) and others have already rioted over it in fact. The electoral college actually IS one of the checks and balances that we have in place, it basically keeps New York and California from deciding everything for the whole country.

Robtard
Originally posted by BackFire
You don't even need to eliminate the EC, just make it more accurately represent the people that it's supposed to represent. If a candidate can lose the popular vote by a few million but win the EC by like 70 or whatever it was, then it stands to reason that maybe the system isn't accurately representing the people. It's counting some votes way more than others simply because of what chunk of land they live in, there's really no reason for that.

I seem to remember DDM, shortly after the election, doing the math and showing that using the current system is the only way that could really happen.

One very simple thing that could improve it without eliminating the EC is to make the electorals based on percentage. So instead of winner take all, if you win 60% of the popular in a state, you get 60% of the electorals. This would allow for a more accurate representation of the state, and the nation as a whole, without putting it all in a national popular vote system, which would probably have another set of problems to deal with.

That sounds like a fair compromise thumb up

But Trumpers will be against this, as they already know Trump's not going to win the pop vote in the majority of states in 2020. Hell, he couldn't win the pop vote against Clinton, lolz.

Robtard
Originally posted by darthgoober
My slippery slope is exactly my point though. People are already in favor of taking property and legal rights from others, Antifa(and others, I'm not singling them out here) and others have already rioted over it in fact. The electoral college actually IS one of the checks and balances that we have in place, it basically keeps New York and California from deciding everything for the whole country.

FFS, more "antifa". They've been labeled a terrorist group now, so you people need to stop with the fear-mongering.

I fail to see how that is the fault of Californians or New Yorkers? You're pushing certain citizens because they happen to live in states more people want to live in.

Silent Master
If it was supposed to "accurately represent the people" then it wouldn't be needed as they could just use the popular vote.

Do schools no longer teach civics?

BackFire
Originally posted by Silent Master
If it was supposed to "accurately represent the people" then it wouldn't be needed as they could just use the popular vote.

Do schools no longer teach civics?

Not really.

It would still be a safeguard as you could divvy up a number of electoral votes a state gets overall, and keep certain states like California from having too much influence.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Robtard
FFS, more "antifa". They've been labeled a terrorist group now, so you people need to stop with the fear-mongering.

I fail to see how that is the fault of Californians or New Yorkers? You're pushing certain citizens because they happen to live in states more people want to live in.
I'm not fear mongering, I'm pointing out something that happened that got a lot of support from the media and populous because it demonstrates that we are in fact in danger of such a thing happening.

Those people who prefer to live in those bubbles are blind to the troubles of those who live outside them. Sure after the election democrats were all "we must have ignored how serious the issues were" but actually losing the election that way is what it took to bring about that mindset.

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
Actually I don't and they were probably ****ing with you, would be my guess



Then you noticed incorrectly.


I hardly posted in the thread. So no

I didn't. You said I was doing the slippery slope to me yesterday and today to someone else.

Sable
Dp

Sable
Originally posted by Robtard
That sounds like a fair compromise thumb up

But Trumpers will be against this, as they already know Trump's not going to win the pop vote in the majority of states in 2020. Hell, he couldn't win the pop vote against Clinton, lolz.

Because of of the Snowflakes in CA, NY and Illinois

Silent Master
Originally posted by BackFire
Not really.

It would still be a safeguard as you could divvy up a number of electoral votes a state gets overall, and keep certain states like California from having too much influence.

You appeared to be complaining that the EC doesn't more closely represent the popular vote. well, it's not supposed to.

If I'm misunderstanding your point. my apologies.

Robtard

darthgoober

Robtard
Originally posted by darthgoober
Well of course an antifa member is going to disagree lol

It's not rediculous, this is something that's been acknowledged by democrats. Hell Bill Maher and other liberals have talked about just how blind democrats and those in large cities were to the rest of the country multiple times. I'm not just pulling it out of my ass.

Weird.

Because Democrats win almost every election? Nope. In fact, I think Republicans hold the majority in the Presidency, if only by a small margin.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Robtard
Weird.

Because Democrats win almost every election? Nope. In fact, I think Republicans hold the majority in the Presidency, if only by a small margin.
No it'd be more weird if you didn't.

Again I'm not the only one saying this, political commentators across the spectrum have noted it.

BackFire
Originally posted by Silent Master
You appeared to be complaining that the EC doesn't more closely represent the popular vote. well, it's not supposed to.

If I'm misunderstanding your point. my apologies.

My point is it can more closely represent the will of the people while still acting as an adequate safeguard against the tyranny of the majority or mob rule.

Silent Master
Originally posted by BackFire
My point is it can more closely represent the will of the people while still acting as an adequate safeguard against the tyranny of the majority or mob rule.

What do you mean by will of the people?

BackFire
Who the overall population votes for.

Silent Master
Originally posted by BackFire
Who the overall population votes for.

So, the popular vote.

Bentley
The fact that your candidates are grown inside a two party system shoots down the idea of any true mob rule ever happening in the US.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.