Jump to content
Pastafarian

Great argument against the electoral college.

Recommended Posts

Just now, kking said:

But they aren't, though. The senators from Minnesota gets elected by way fewer votes than the senators from California. 

 

So?  It's majority rules therefore the one with the highest number of votes wins in their state.  No difference. Why not that for President?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pengwin said:

So?  It's majority rules therefore the one with the highest number of votes wins in their state.  No difference. Why not that for President?

Why the qualification of "in their state"? I thought majority rule is the ideal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Huey said:

You can't dump the Constitution. 

 

Yes, you can.  Read Jefferson to Madison.

 

If we could dump a king we can dump a piece of paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kking said:

Why the qualification of "in their state"? I thought majority rule is the ideal?

 

It is.  Majority rule wins in CA elections.  Majority rule wins in VT elections, so, why does majority rule not win in a national election?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pengwin said:

 

So?  It's majority rules therefore the one with the highest number of votes wins in their state.  No difference. Why not that for President?

 

 

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH PRESIDENT YOU MORON!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Huey said:

You can't dump the Constitution.  You can have a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.  And what if 22 states DO NOT wish to dump the Union?  That's another argument.

 

Nothing is stopping you from attempting to pull together that convention, propose the amendments, get two thirds of the state legislatures to sign on, and get 38 states to agree.

 

Good luck!

 

1 minute ago, Pengwin said:

 

Yes, you can.  Read Jefferson to Madison.

 

If we could dump a king we can dump a piece of paper.

As I am understanding your posts you are no fan of the Constitution.  

 

As I said, Good Luck!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pengwin said:

 

Yes, you can.  Read Jefferson to Madison.

 

If we could dump a king we can dump a piece of paper.

Through the legislative measures outlined in the constitution, or by revolution?

 

1 minute ago, Pengwin said:

 

It is.  Majority rule wins in CA elections.  Majority rule wins in VT elections, so, why does majority rule not win in a national election?

 

But the house and the senate pass legislation for the whole country. Why shouldn't it be a national vote for every legislator, if majority rule is the ideal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pengwin said:

 

It is.  Majority rule wins in CA elections.  Majority rule wins in VT elections, so, why does majority rule not win in a national election?

 

Because we don't have a national election.  We have 50 state elections (+ DC).  Duh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kking said:

Through the legislative measures outlined in the constitution, or by revolution?

 

But the house and the senate pass legislation for the whole country. Why shouldn't it be a national vote for every legislator, if majority rule is the ideal?

That is called a representative republic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SixShooter said:

 

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH PRESIDENT YOU MORON!!

 

No.  If that were true there would be no EC, the People would elect the President directly, like state citizens directly elect their Senators now (which wasn't true when the nation was founded).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pengwin said:

 

Yes, you can.  Read Jefferson to Madison.

 

If we could dump a king we can dump a piece of paper.

 

Geez, fourteen pages of ignorant liberal blather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pengwin said:

 

It is.  Majority rule wins in CA elections.  Majority rule wins in VT elections, so, why does majority rule not win in a national election?

 

.

 

That's easy to answer. You're an ignoramus and an imbecile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pengwin said:

 

There are none, but small Flyover states like it.

That type of thinking is proof of the need of the EC. You have just provided the very reason the compromise was made and why it is part of the Constitution. 
 

Your real problem is the Dems ran the one person in the US that Trump could beat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kking said:

Through the legislative measures outlined in the constitution, or by revolution?

 

But the house and the senate pass legislation for the whole country. Why shouldn't it be a national vote for every legislator, if majority rule is the ideal?

 

It's a false premise.  When CA elects ____, it does so with CA citizens and the most votes wins.  The same with all other states but for US citizens, they do not get to elect their President directly, the most votes wins  And that's the only election like it here and that's wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, neilcar said:

That type of thinking is proof of the need of the EC. You have just provided the very reason the compromise was made and why it is part of the Constitution. 
 

Your real problem is the Dems ran the one person in the US that Trump could beat. 

 

But he didn't beat her, hence the point.  The majority of voters voted for her.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pengwin said:

No.  

 

YES. YOU SAID the one with the highest number of votes wins in their state. That is EXACTLY how it works with presidential elections.

 

END OF DISCUSSION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SixShooter said:

 

YES. YOU SAID the one with the highest number of votes wins in their state.

 

 

Right, like a governor.  The one who gets the highest number of votes, from the citizens, wins.  So, why is that not true for US citizens when voting for their highest leader, the President?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pengwin said:

 

Right, like a governor.  The one who gets the highest number of votes, from the citizens, wins.  So, why is that not true for US citizens when voting for their highest leader, the President?

 

 

It is. The highest number of votes for president wins in that state. Then that state's electors are awarded accordingly.

 

Why do we have to teach you civics 101??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SixShooter said:

 

It is. The highest number of votes for president wins in that state.

 

 

Okay, I'll help.  When you vote for your governor, do you vote for electors (that then elect him) or do vote directly and the one with the most votes wins?

 

G1: gets 100,000 votes, G2: gets 200,000 votes.

 

Which one wins?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Pengwin said:

 

So?  It's majority rules therefore the one with the highest number of votes wins in their state.  No difference. Why not that for President?

 

 

It is the same.  The majority of the voters in the state decide which electors they want to represent them in the Presidential vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pengwin said:

It's a false premise.  When CA elects ____, it does so with CA citizens and the most votes wins.  The same with all other states but for US citizens, they do not get to elect their President directly, the most votes wins  And that's the only election like it here and that's wrong.

No. You've asserted over and over that majority rule is the ideal form of democracy, and that the EC undermines majority rule. So my question is, why is electing the president different than electing the senate or the house, ESPECIALLY considering that the legislature is more influential over policy and legislation than the president? Why are the citizens California subject to the influence of senators whom they didn't elect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Pengwin said:

But he didn't beat her

 

Yes he did.

 

12 minutes ago, Pengwin said:

The majority of voters voted for her.

 

Still can't grasp it huh? 

 

I'm done. You're unteachable.

 

Besides, I already declared END OF DISCUSSION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kking said:

Why are the citizens California subject to the influence of senators whom they didn't elect?

 

Because they have majority rule elections to elect their own Senators, who then have to fight it out with other Senators. 

 

The real question is why does CA, with a huge population, have the same number of senators and tiny Rhode Island?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SixShooter said:

 

Yes he did.

 

 

Still can't grasp it huh? 

 

I'm done. You're unteachable.

 

Besides, I already declared END OF DISCUSSION.

 

So, go away then  Goodbye, idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

  • By Imgreatagain

    Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • By deezer shoove

    grgle


  • By rippy38

  • By Str8tEdge

    Where’s at @slideman?


  • By Robot88

    Hola


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?


  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 


  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...