@no1marauder saidAll points of view are published on the internet . I gather you are a mob-rule kind of guy, and also an open border person, you have never once written anything against the idea of these many many millions of illegal people coming into our country. You have never mentioned one thing against it. Therefore, you are in favor of it. You may say that you are not in favor of it, I see that you are in favor of it.
What BS. Abolition of the EC would require a Constitutional amendment, but Amendments are allowed under the Constitution and 27 have been added to it.
So how is proposing an amendment according to procedures outlined in the Constitution "attacking it"? Was the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery an "attack" on the Constitution? When women were no longer denied their ri ...[text shortened]... hehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/133889-trump-calls-for-revolution-blasts-electoral-college/
To abolish the EC is to bring in mob rule.
Thus, no question you are mob rule, and you are open border.
I am exactly opposite. EC protects liberty. Your idea does not. Rest my case.
BTW have you ever typed the words, freedom, liberty, or independence on any of your posts. I would be curious to look back on that one.
@AverageJoe1 saidWhat a load of nonsensical rubbish.
All points of view are published on the internet . I gather you are a mob-rule kind of guy, and also an open border person, you have never once written anything against the idea of these many many millions of illegal people coming into our country. You have never mentioned one thing against it. Therefore, you are in favor of it. You may say that you are not in favor of it ...[text shortened]... freedom, liberty, or independence on any of your posts. I would be curious to look back on that one.
Please tell me, specifically, how the Electoral College "protects liberty" and stop ranting like a fool. This is supposed to be a Debates Forum, not a lie about other posters beliefs Forum.
- Joined
- 04 Jan 02
- Moves
- 11961
1 edit
@no1marauder
California, NY and Florida would decide every election if the electoral college was removed.
Democrats would just promise the world to NY and California to steal the election each and every time.
@Parasite saidThat's absurd. Even those three States put together have less than a 1/4 of the nation's population. https://worldpopulationreview.com/states
@no1marauder
California, NY and Florida would decide every election if the electoral college was removed.
Democrats would just promise the world to NY and California to steal the election each and every time.
I assume you consider an election "stolen" when the side you don't like gets more votes.
@no1marauder saidKeeping the EC balances the influence of densely and sparsely populated areas. This insures that presidential candidates consider a wide array of interests nationwide, not just in populous regions, it supports coalition-building and upholds of federalist government structure.
What a load of nonsensical rubbish.
Please tell me, specifically, how the Electoral College "protects liberty" and stop ranting like a fool. This is supposed to be a Debates Forum, not a lie about other posters beliefs Forum.
Without EC, Smaller states would be ignored by candidates. The candidates might prioritize larger densely populated states. Right now the EC gives each state a say. Otherwise,11 states could swing an electiion…20% of the states. You know all of this. Why are you posing this obvious scenario as some sort of an issue.? To me, the ECis a no brainer. I have an uncle in WY. He would have no say.
Don’t rant like SHouse. Write us like I just wrote you. You get to say ‘me’ like I did just once. Otherwise, factorama please.
- Joined
- 04 Jan 02
- Moves
- 11961
@no1marauder
Look at it this way, it doesn't matter what party you like or hate, most Americans are dumb as dodos.
Any politician could promise these dumb people anything just to get the votes and get elected.
The Democrats have been using this tactic to get the black vote for decades. (It's not working this time though)
If the electoral college is removed then y'all need a multiple party system like the UK and Canada etc.
@Parasite saidBut, the UK has regions such as somerset and the Cotswalds, tantamount to our states. Someone, I think it is Zahlanzi, suggest s remove EC and do away with states, this becomes quite convoluted to discuss, and that we would, I assume, have regions.
@no1marauder
Look at it this way, it doesn't matter what party you like or hate, most Americans are dumb as dodos.
Any politician could promise these dumb people anything just to get the votes and get elected.
The Democrats have been using this tactic to get the black vote for decades. (It's not working this time though)
If the electoral college is removed then y'all need a multiple party system like the UK and Canada etc.
I’m trying to get what you mean. What do you mean? And. How does multiple parties figure?
I have no idea your point. Meanwhile, I am waiting for marauder to get back about how we will get along with no EC. One huge electorate of 330M. You know, he just cannot get away from a mob mentality.
@AverageJoe1 saidWithout the EC the candidates would focus on their message to ALL voters, not swinging the margin in a few states. Candidates wouldn't just go to dense areas. They would go to areas where they had a chance to pick up votes - wherever that was.
Keeping the EC balances the influence of densely and sparsely populated areas. This insures that presidential candidates consider a wide array of interests nationwide, not just in populous regions, it supports coalition-building and upholds of federalist government structure.
Without EC, Smaller states would be ignored by candidates. The candidates might prioritize la ...[text shortened]... te us like I just wrote you. You get to say ‘me’ like I did just once. Otherwise, factorama please.
With the size of the House capped, all the EC does is introduce an unfair bias.
@AverageJoe1 saidA government is supposed to represent the will of the People not "areas" i.e. pieces of dirt.
Keeping the EC balances the influence of densely and sparsely populated areas. This insures that presidential candidates consider a wide array of interests nationwide, not just in populous regions, it supports coalition-building and upholds of federalist government structure.
Without EC, Smaller states would be ignored by candidates. The candidates might prioritize la ...[text shortened]... te us like I just wrote you. You get to say ‘me’ like I did just once. Otherwise, factorama please.
What the EC does in our present political climate is to make the votes of most Americans utterly irrelevant as a few swing States wind up deciding the election.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI really do not get the gist of your saying the will of the people in this situation. Mainly, the people in Wyoming, the people whom you seem to be referring to, would not have their will even glanced at. You apparently do not understand the nature of Which states the candidates will try to benefit.
A government is supposed to represent the will of the People not "areas" i.e. pieces of dirt.
What the EC does in our present political climate is to make the votes of most Americans utterly irrelevant as a few swing States wind up deciding the election.
It would not be Wyoming. If you were running a man’s campaign, you would tell him to not waste his time in Wyoming. You know it, I know it.
@AverageJoe1 saidComplete nonsense; a vote in Wyoming would count the same as a vote in California.
I really do not get the gist of your saying the will of the people in this situation. Mainly, the people in Wyoming, the people whom you seem to be referring to, would not have their will even glanced at. You apparently do not understand the nature of Which states the candidates will try to benefit.
It would not be Wyoming. If you were running a man’s campaign, you would tell him to not waste his time in Wyoming. You know it, I know it.
@no1marauder saidGolly. So simple. And yet the people who study and write these articles do not get it? Seems like you are saying everyone's vote would count. Since that is obvious on its face, though....that all votes of all citizens are the same at the voting booth....we have got to make these learned article writers see this fact, and tell us why they think the process goes awry.
Complete nonsense; a vote in Wyoming would count the same as a vote in California.
Can you put in plain english why it goes awry? I think the EC justification is, well, justified. You think it is not. But you do not make a case.
Do you deny that simply having each vote be equal when it arrives in DC is tantamount to Rule of the Mob? 51% control 49%. Sonhouse, and you, and McHill for god sakes, would take away my right to have a say. I live in a state of 555,000. CA has about 85M. My neighbors and I , we will be ignored.
Plain english for our readers, please. If it were all so simple as you suggest, what were the Founders so antsy about!?!?
@AverageJoe1 saidWhat you call "mob rule" is what most people call "democracy".
Golly. So simple. And yet the people who study and write these articles do not get it? Seems like you are saying everyone's vote would count. Since that is obvious on its face, though....that all votes of all citizens are the same at the voting booth....we have got to make these learned article writers see this fact, and tell us why they think the process goes awry.
...[text shortened]... readers, please. If it were all so simple as you suggest, what were the Founders so antsy about!?!?
1 edit
@Parasite
Says a Canadian POS who NEVER saw immigrants at their jobs and OF COURSE neither did Trump. I expect a 'person' like you to totally believe everything Trump says but fortunately you are not eligible to vote here but that might not stop you since you love Trump and might try to vote here illegally anyway.
You picked your name well PARASITE.
You are an embarrassment to Canadians.
@AverageJoe1 saidIn 1790, the least populous State, Delaware, had about 1.5% of the country's population
Golly. So simple. And yet the people who study and write these articles do not get it? Seems like you are saying everyone's vote would count. Since that is obvious on its face, though....that all votes of all citizens are the same at the voting booth....we have got to make these learned article writers see this fact, and tell us why they think the process goes awry.
...[text shortened]... readers, please. If it were all so simple as you suggest, what were the Founders so antsy about!?!?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census
In 2020, the least populous State, Wyoming doesn't even have 0.2% of the nation's population.
Things change and a Constitution should be able to reflect such changes. We didn't consider the Framers' decisions to allow slavery or to deny women the right to vote sacrosanct, so why should we continue to be under an undemocratic institution which doesn't even function as originally designed and deviates from the general rule that whoever gets the most votes wins the election?