If you agree with the Electoral College, you agree with Slavery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg enough already you sore loser libs. Go away. Go start working on your dumbass "mail safety pins to trump" campaign. YOU. LOST.

As a liberal, I am embarrassed with this whining.

If the electoral college is not the way to go - and the popular vote is more fair - then work to get it changed. But the EC has been the criteria since the founding of this country and certainly since we broke away from England so it is the method of deciding elections until the constitution is amended.

I hope you are as passionate and vocal when Trump goes after the First Amendment.

As a liberal, I am embarrassed with his whining about his suing the press and everyone who says bad things about him.

I welcome your voice to support the Constitution on this matter.

I have an issue with anyone who breaks the law or seeks to violate the constitution - whether it is the 1st Amendment or any other amendment. I don't care if it is Trump or anyone else.

I support the right of people to protest against Trump - I don't support it when they choose to break the law and cause property damage or physical injury. I don't have double standards when it comes to following the law.

For the most part the demonstrations have been peaceful. But the Trump people have no mandate when he lost the majority vote by a million votes. That is the issue here. There is no mandate and don't act like you have one.

What does it matter whether anyone says Trump has a mandate? If he can get legislation passed that accomplishes a conservative agenda that is what matters. He could have won the popular vote by 10 million votes but if he is not able to get legislation passed it does not make a bit of difference - mandate or no mandate.

So democracy doesn't matter. US is just as undemocratic as China where the leader doesn't have a majority vote(a mandate). Go learn what a mandate means. So atleast agree that America is no more a democracy than China is instead of pretensions of a great democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

Just curious, if Hillary Clinton had won the Electoral College vote would you make your statement?

Not PP. But I am principally against an antiquated Electoral College rooted in racism. Because this is so undemocratic that it invalidates CA or NY votes. How is it fair to disenfranchise the largest state in the union? The senate is there to voice for the small states. The big states are a literally voiceless because 1 WY vote = 4 CA votes.

So, basically, you think the thinking, votes, and ideas or the people of California and New York should rule the country?

So you think the country should be ruled by the minority WY voter but not by the majority in the country? It is tyranny of the minority in the USA. You don;t even have to win a majority vote and CA votes means nothing even if the state is the largest economy.

The senate is designed so the small state has a say. How much should the country bend to the WY voter at the cost of disenfranchising the CA voter? At some point ofcourse the LA, NYC voters are going to say enough is enough and protest because they are truly disenfranchised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So democracy doesn't matter. US is just as undemocratic as China where the leader doesn't have a majority vote(a mandate). Go learn what a mandate means. So atleast agree that America is no more a democracy than China is instead of pretensions of a great democracy.

Change the constitution if you think the existing process is undemocratic.

Stop whining about the drawbacks to our current system if voters are not inclined to make changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No. Wy with a population of 550000 gets 3 EC votes which is the minimum any state should get. But ND with a population of 750,000 also gets 3 EC votes. So they are allocated on a range. So it doesn't matter you win ND with about 200,000 more votes you still get only 3EC votes. Wait it gets much worse, CA gets only 55 EC votes despite having a population of 35Million.

The senate has 2 seats no matter the population of the state. Fine,, senate was designed so the small state gets a voice at the table. But then why should a DIRECT ELECTING presidential election also skew the vote to the small WY over CA? A CA vote is literally worthless compared to a WY vote. CA is the largest state in the union but is the most disenfranchised in the union.

What body decides on the allocation differentials between the states? How often is it realigned? Based on these numbers CA should have like 1,000 votes but honestly...I don't think 1 or 2 states should have all the power to decide our nation's presidency. People in North Dakota have just as much right to vote for a president and expect their vote to mean something as someone who lives in New York. Otherwise they're not part of a union but a tyranny.

Really what you're asking for cities to be the arbitrators of power. Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would decide our fates. That's a lot of power resting only in the wealthy elites, in those mayors, and in rule by density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg enough already you sore loser libs. Go away. Go start working on your dumbass "mail safety pins to trump" campaign. YOU. LOST.

NO in any other country in the world, a Majority vote winner is the president BUT then USA is a FAKE democracy which picks the LOSER to be president. The real loser in this is the TRUMP voter who is gonna be screwed by a recession that is gonna follow the tax cuts for the rich and the environment. Trump is not gonna get any jobs from the machines or from China. Coal is a dead industry with Solar costing lower than Coal and going lower.

You are correct about the bolded. We are a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy at all.

[Anonymous]

Yes, just stop. You are embarrasssing yourself. The war is over. You can get out of the foxhole and off the island now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg enough already you sore loser libs. Go away. Go start working on your dumbass "mail safety pins to trump" campaign. YOU. LOST.

NO in any other country in the world, a Majority vote winner is the president BUT then USA is a FAKE democracy which picks the LOSER to be president. The real loser in this is the TRUMP voter who is gonna be screwed by a recession that is gonna follow the tax cuts for the rich and the environment. Trump is not gonna get any jobs from the machines or from China. Coal is a dead industry with Solar costing lower than Coal and going lower.

You are correct about the bolded. We are a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy at all.

If we are not a democracy,Then why conduct election? is it to pick the LOSER to be president?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. Wy with a population of 550000 gets 3 EC votes which is the minimum any state should get. But ND with a population of 750,000 also gets 3 EC votes. So they are allocated on a range. So it doesn't matter you win ND with about 200,000 more votes you still get only 3EC votes. Wait it gets much worse, CA gets only 55 EC votes despite having a population of 35Million.

The senate has 2 seats no matter the population of the state. Fine,, senate was designed so the small state gets a voice at the table. But then why should a DIRECT ELECTING presidential election also skew the vote to the small WY over CA? A CA vote is literally worthless compared to a WY vote. CA is the largest state in the union but is the most disenfranchised in the union.

What body decides on the allocation differentials between the states? How often is it realigned? Based on these numbers CA should have like 1,000 votes but honestly...I don't think 1 or 2 states should have all the power to decide our nation's presidency. People in North Dakota have just as much right to vote for a president and expect their vote to mean something as someone who lives in New York. Otherwise they're not part of a union but a tyranny.

Really what you're asking for cities to be the arbitrators of power. Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would decide our fates. That's a lot of power resting only in the wealthy elites, in those mayors, and in rule by density.

No your calculation is wrong. Do the math again. CA will not have a thousand votes. CA should have about about 120 EC votes, if you eliminate all the rounding.

There is the senate that takes care of the voice for the small states. Every state has 2 senate seats regardless of the population. That was the design of the senate and nobody complains about it. Have you ever seen any protest that the senate is not representative?

But the Electoral college for presidency is also skewed to the small states? So you think there should be tyranny of the minority in the presidential election as well as in the senate? So the CA voter has no rights, even when contributing the most to the union?

I can't spoon feed the entire history of EC and american election evolution. Read up lil bit on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg enough already you sore loser libs. Go away. Go start working on your dumbass "mail safety pins to trump" campaign. YOU. LOST.

NO in any other country in the world, a Majority vote winner is the president BUT then USA is a FAKE democracy which picks the LOSER to be president. The real loser in this is the TRUMP voter who is gonna be screwed by a recession that is gonna follow the tax cuts for the rich and the environment. Trump is not gonna get any jobs from the machines or from China. Coal is a dead industry with Solar costing lower than Coal and going lower.

Do you not know where you live? You had to have been born here because a naturalized citizen would know the following and apparently you don't.

It is called the United States of America, for a reason. We are a NATION of 50 separate states united as a Republic. There is a lot more to learn and a free internet to do your research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

I see you started another thread. Well, I posted this to your sharing of that link on another and jic you don't see it there, here it is ON TOPIC with this one.

"One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College" You have taken that, and made it a fact. Not even the writer of the article did that. The writer did go on to share what he believes is the reason almost as if it is fact. See, he can do that since he prefaced it as he did. In other words, it's the writers opinion.

I would hope you have a broader knowledge of the balance of power, states rights, etc. but I won't hold out hope.

New PP. I didn't start this thread. There are so many books written about the evolution of Electoral College. The southern states didn't have the WHITE POPULATION to compete with the North in national elections because the blacks cant vote. This would have guaranteed Northern politicians winning the presidential election every time. To prevent this from happening the southern politicians created the Electoral College which includes the Black population without giving them a vote. This is the fundamental reason for the Electoral College. There are variations of this theory but the basic thing is EC is rooted in Racism.

http://fusion.net/story/369039/electoral-college-racist-trump/

http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/11/12/electoral-college-origins-slavery/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-a-goodman/electoral-college-hidden-problem_b_2046957.html

Don't care about a bunch of opinions put forth on blogs. Just as the one the OP linked. Fact is it was set up for equal representation. Virginia, a slave state, was equal to Pennsylvania in white males 16 and over population. North Carolina almost as populated as NY. And there was only 4 southern states. Taking one part of a discussion/issue and making it the whole is bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

Just curious, if Hillary Clinton had won the Electoral College vote would you make your statement?

Not PP. But I am principally against an antiquated Electoral College rooted in racism. Because this is so undemocratic that it invalidates CA or NY votes. How is it fair to disenfranchise the largest state in the union? The senate is there to voice for the small states. The big states are a literally voiceless because 1 WY vote = 4 CA votes.

How does that portion of your statement work by the way? I am genuinely asking. Is there a maximum cap on how many electoral college votes a state can have no matter their population size? I thought each state was given a vote based on the number of residents residing within each state except for the smaller ones which get 3 automatically?

You're correct.

What these people are trying to do is change our nation from a Republic to a Democracy. They don't seem to know the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. Wy with a population of 550000 gets 3 EC votes which is the minimum any state should get. But ND with a population of 750,000 also gets 3 EC votes. So they are allocated on a range. So it doesn't matter you win ND with about 200,000 more votes you still get only 3EC votes. Wait it gets much worse, CA gets only 55 EC votes despite having a population of 35Million.

The senate has 2 seats no matter the population of the state. Fine,, senate was designed so the small state gets a voice at the table. But then why should a DIRECT ELECTING presidential election also skew the vote to the small WY over CA? A CA vote is literally worthless compared to a WY vote. CA is the largest state in the union but is the most disenfranchised in the union.

What body decides on the allocation differentials between the states? How often is it realigned? Based on these numbers CA should have like 1,000 votes but honestly...I don't think 1 or 2 states should have all the power to decide our nation's presidency. People in North Dakota have just as much right to vote for a president and expect their vote to mean something as someone who lives in New York. Otherwise they're not part of a union but a tyranny.

Really what you're asking for cities to be the arbitrators of power. Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would decide our fates. That's a lot of power resting only in the wealthy elites, in those mayors, and in rule by density.

No your calculation is wrong. Do the math again. CA will not have a thousand votes. CA should have about about 120 EC votes, if you eliminate all the rounding.

There is the senate that takes care of the voice for the small states. Every state has 2 senate seats regardless of the population. That was the design of the senate and nobody complains about it. Have you ever seen any protest that the senate is not representative?

But the Electoral college for presidency is also skewed to the small states? So you think there should be tyranny of the minority in the presidential election as well as in the senate? So the CA voter has no rights, even when contributing the most to the union?

I can't spoon feed the entire history of EC and american election evolution. Read up lil bit on your own.

It was just an estimate and I still don't agree with your desire to do this.

"So the CA voter has no rights, even when contributing the most to the union?"

Contributing the most what? People. That's a silly arbitrator of power.

Besides if this came to pass, it's more than likely California would be broken up into four states - I'm not sure you'd like it so much then. If we can't have companies that are too big to fail, entrusting half of our electoral process of the executive branch to one state is certainly wishful thinking.

Let it go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. Wy with a population of 550000 gets 3 EC votes which is the minimum any state should get. But ND with a population of 750,000 also gets 3 EC votes. So they are allocated on a range. So it doesn't matter you win ND with about 200,000 more votes you still get only 3EC votes. Wait it gets much worse, CA gets only 55 EC votes despite having a population of 35Million.

The senate has 2 seats no matter the population of the state. Fine,, senate was designed so the small state gets a voice at the table. But then why should a DIRECT ELECTING presidential election also skew the vote to the small WY over CA? A CA vote is literally worthless compared to a WY vote. CA is the largest state in the union but is the most disenfranchised in the union.

What body decides on the allocation differentials between the states? How often is it realigned? Based on these numbers CA should have like 1,000 votes but honestly...I don't think 1 or 2 states should have all the power to decide our nation's presidency. People in North Dakota have just as much right to vote for a president and expect their vote to mean something as someone who lives in New York. Otherwise they're not part of a union but a tyranny.

Really what you're asking for cities to be the arbitrators of power. Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would decide our fates. That's a lot of power resting only in the wealthy elites, in those mayors, and in rule by density.

The poster that keeps comparing Wy with Cali, Cali has more EC votes proportionately than does Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg enough already you sore loser libs. Go away. Go start working on your dumbass "mail safety pins to trump" campaign. YOU. LOST.

NO in any other country in the world, a Majority vote winner is the president BUT then USA is a FAKE democracy which picks the LOSER to be president. The real loser in this is the TRUMP voter who is gonna be screwed by a recession that is gonna follow the tax cuts for the rich and the environment. Trump is not gonna get any jobs from the machines or from China. Coal is a dead industry with Solar costing lower than Coal and going lower.

Do you not know where you live? You had to have been born here because a naturalized citizen would know the following and apparently you don't.

It is called the United States of America, for a reason. We are a NATION of 50 separate states united as a Republic. There is a lot more to learn and a free internet to do your research.

What has the name of the country got to do with the discussion? You didn't make any point to the discussion. Obviously making an insult is the best you can contribute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

I see you started another thread. Well, I posted this to your sharing of that link on another and jic you don't see it there, here it is ON TOPIC with this one.

"One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College" You have taken that, and made it a fact. Not even the writer of the article did that. The writer did go on to share what he believes is the reason almost as if it is fact. See, he can do that since he prefaced it as he did. In other words, it's the writers opinion.

I would hope you have a broader knowledge of the balance of power, states rights, etc. but I won't hold out hope.

New PP. I didn't start this thread. There are so many books written about the evolution of Electoral College. The southern states didn't have the WHITE POPULATION to compete with the North in national elections because the blacks cant vote. This would have guaranteed Northern politicians winning the presidential election every time. To prevent this from happening the southern politicians created the Electoral College which includes the Black population without giving them a vote. This is the fundamental reason for the Electoral College. There are variations of this theory but the basic thing is EC is rooted in Racism.

http://fusion.net/story/369039/electoral-college-racist-trump/

http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/11/12/electoral-college-origins-slavery/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-a-goodman/electoral-college-hidden-problem_b_2046957.html

Don't care about a bunch of opinions put forth on blogs. Just as the one the OP linked. Fact is it was set up for equal representation. Virginia, a slave state, was equal to Pennsylvania in white males 16 and over population. North Carolina almost as populated as NY. And there was only 4 southern states. Taking one part of a discussion/issue and making it the whole is bs.

Yeah never read, learn or do any research. There books an Amazon on the very topic written by historians. But then for the know nothings common sense is enough and superior to years of research. Ignorance is bliss but just keep away from forums.