Jump to content
Pastafarian

Great argument against the electoral college.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Pengwin said:

 

Because it only has one Federal government over them all.  Shouldn't a Fed. election be the same as a State election, the one with the most votes wins?  Was this nation founded for the states or the people?

 

No.

Share this post


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

Why would I think of the US as one big state when everything in the founding documents say that they are a union of states?

Why can't the people in Florida vote for the governor of California?

Share this post


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

 

See numbnuts (a.k.a. Pengwin) you DID say the majority of voters voted for her. 

 

YOU LIED! 

 

The majority did, that doesn't mean over 50%. If I forgot I said it that way, I apologize.  I'm still not wrong.

 

ma·jor·i·ty
/məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun
noun: majority; plural noun: majorities
  1. 1.
    the greater number.
    "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"
     
     

Share this post


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

Why can't the people in Florida vote for the governor of California?

 

Because they are citizens of Florida not California.

 

Why can't the citizens of the US directly elect the President of the US?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EC Compromise whys and hows  has been explained to you several times.  This Compromise is one of the very reason all States ratified the Constitution in the 1st place.

 

We are a republic which has a document that ensure certain rights may not be taken away, EVEN if a temp. majority votes to do away with them.  In our document certain rights and other provisions are detailed (including how we elect Presidents)  We have elected Presidents for over 200 years and seems to work just fine.   

Share this post


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

We have elected Presidents for over 200 years and seems to work just fine.   

 

I disagree, and we don't live in 1820.

 

Share this post


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

 

I disagree, and we don't live in 1820.

 

Again, I point you to article IV.  What are you doing about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kking said:

 

Do you have any skepticism about a system that would allow roughly twelve states to determine the president every single election? Or, to put it another way, for roughly 20 metropolitan areas to determine the president every single election?


None whatsoever, King. 

 

States are artificially defined areas of land. Why should we apportion votes to land? 

Share this post


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

 

Because it only has one Federal government over them all.  Shouldn't a Fed. election be the same as a State election, the one with the most votes wins?  Was this nation founded for the states or the people?

That logic applies equally to congress, which passes legislation for the whole country... do you not see my point here?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kfools said:

Why can't the people in Florida vote for the governor of California?

Exactly. Majority rule, right?

Share this post


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

Again, I point you to article IV.  What are you doing about it?

 

Telling you that that hack is as bad as the people not being able to directly elect their senators, which we fixed with the 17th Amendment.

 

The same needs to be done to end the EC.  It's undemocratic.

 

Share this post


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

 

Because they are citizens of Florida not California.

 

Why can't the citizens of the US directly elect the President of the US?

 

 

Because they are citizens of the state.  Look at your voter registration and tell us who issued it.

 

If we EVER have a national election in this country we will need to set up some rules.  Right now, every election is either state level or lower. 

 

Share this post


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

That logic applies equally to congress, which passes legislation for the whole country... do you not see my point here?

 

 

 

The people get to elect there members of Congress, but not their President.  Get it, now?

 

Share this post


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

 

Because they are citizens of the state.  Look at your voter registration and tell us who issued it.

 

If we EVER have a national election in this country we will need to set up some rules.  Right now, every election is either state level or lower. 

 

 

The rule is simple, he who gets the most votes becomes the President.

 

it's no more complicated than that.

 

Share this post


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

 

The people get to elect there members of Congress, but not their President.  Get it, now?

 

 

We have been telling you that.  The people don't elect the President...the states elect the President.

 

I'm glad you finally admit it.

 

Share this post


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

 

Telling you that that hack is as bad as the people not being able to directly elect their senators, which we fixed with the 17th Amendment.

 

The same needs to be done to end the EC.  It's undemocratic.

 

Your first mistake is thinking senators were representatives of the people.  They were not and are still not supposed to be.  The senators represent the STATE's interest.  That is why the state appointed them.  The House of Representative are the direct representatives of the people.  

 

Next, we are not a democracy.  We are a Republic of 50 individual States using democratic principles.  Not a pure democracy.  

 

I know understand why you are confused on this entire issue and why it is done this way.

Share this post


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

Exactly. Majority rule, right?

 

Within the election, right.

 

So, since that is true at state and local levels, why isn't that true at the national level?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Olivaw said:

States are artificially defined areas of land. Why should we apportion votes to land? 

The same reason we apportion senators to land, and federal resources to land - because we understand that simple majority rule distorts the function and priorities of the nation at large. 

 

There are way more urban dwellers than rural dwellers. But if you give no representation to rural dwellers (or proportionally diminished representation), you have no food supply, no raw materials, reduced transport, etc. 

Share this post


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

 

The rule is simple, he who gets the most votes becomes the President.

 

it's no more complicated than that.

 

 

When you gain possession of your own country, you can do whatever stupid thing you want, moonbat.

Share this post


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

Within the election, right.

So, since that is true at state and local levels, why isn't that true at the national level?

It is. The president is elected by the states. 

Share this post


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

 

We have been telling you that.  The people don't elect the President...

 

 

Yes, I know, and that's wrong.  We the people, for the people, not the states.

Share this post


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

 

Because they are citizens of Florida not California.

I see. Look you actually answered YAY. 

 

So then states are sovereign even though members from both are citizens?

7 minutes ago, Pengwin said:

Why can't the citizens of the US directly elect the President of the US?

 

Because that would be like voting for the governor of Nebraska in California. Due to population differences Nebraska would have no actual say over who was thier governor.

Share this post


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

 

The rule is simple, he who gets the most votes becomes the President.

 

it's no more complicated than that.

 

 

You are absolutely correct.  And 538 people (selected by the people of the various states as determined by the people they directly elected) get to vote on who becomes President.  Whoever gets at lease 270 of those votes, wins.

 

Share this post


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

 

When you gain possession of your own country, you can do whatever stupid thing you want, moonbat.

 

This is my own country.  People like be founded it, I'm a liberal.

Share this post


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

Because that would be like voting for the governor of Nebraska in California.

 

No, does someone in Nebraska vote in elections in California? Citizens of each state vote for those in their state but citizens of the US cannot vote like that for an election in the US.  Why?

 

 

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.. 


  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


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