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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you think CA contributes only in population then you have no grasp about anything. You are confusing the senate to direct election of the president. Nobody is arguing the usefulness of the senate in acting as strong voice for small states. But to elect a president it shoud simply be one person-one vote. Period. That's how every nation In the world works. There is no country other than the slavery era EC used by USA that skews the vote so a small state voter has 4/5 times as many votes as a big state voter. None. Can you name any?

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

Ignorance is usually bliss but in your case it seems to be causing you a lot of consternation.

[Anonymous]

You are surprisingly ignorant about the government structures of other countries....

Anonymous wrote:


If you think CA contributes only in population then you have no grasp about anything. You are confusing the senate to direct election of the president. Nobody is arguing the usefulness of the senate in acting as strong voice for small states. But to elect a president it shoud simply be one person-one vote. Period. That's how every nation In the world works. There is no country other than the slavery era EC used by USA that skews the vote so a small state voter has 4/5 times as many votes as a big state voter. None. Can you name any?

Most Western countries have coalition style governments (see Europe) so it's very rare for one party to gain more than 50% of the vote. It's also quite possible for the largest party with the plurality of the vote to be locked out of government of the other parties can form a coalition. In Britain, which also has a FPTP system similar to the US congressional elections, there are definitely times when one party wins the most seats but the "losing" party actually received more votes cast.

The leaders of most western countries aren't directly elected by their voters. The British Prime Minister is elected by his/her MPs, not the voters. Angela Merkel also isn't elected directly by her voters. You'll find it's the leader of the biggest party (usually in the coalition if there's one) that becomes the leader of the country, so you can very easily have a situation where the country's leader was only indirectly voted (via the party) by a third or even less of all votes cast.

Further, as you stated: "that's how every nation in the world works," there are many countries that are de facto dictatorships. China certainly doesn't have a voting democracy. Much of the Middle East operates under a dictatorship of some type. Or if it's ostensibly a democracy, the voting is known to be heavily rigged.

Last but not least, given that this election was a statistical tie, it could have just as easily swung the other way with Trump winning the popular vote and losing the EC to HRC, and you know fully well you'd be on here defending the EC....

[Anonymous]

FYI the title of your thread is grossly misleading and inflammatory. Using your logic if I agreed with the division of powers into the three branches of the government as put into place by our Founding Fathers, I must also agree with slavery.

Is that the case?

[Anonymous]

The Electoral College Should Not Be Abolished
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpuIAZzmjbk[/url]

[Anonymous]

But Babe listen. I know losing is painful. You should have learned that and how to cope up with it when you were younger. If this election loss can derail you this much how are you going to cope with greater losses in your life in the years to come?

[Anonymous]

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.

LOL. fuck yourself OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So as a black HRC voter, I think I should be enslaved again?

Stop. Stop. Stop.

you have never been enslaved, unless you're over 160 years old...

[Anonymous]

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.

Regardless of race and party, OP, you are stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI the title of your thread is grossly misleading and inflammatory. Using your logic if I agreed with the division of powers into the three branches of the government as put into place by our Founding Fathers, I must also agree with slavery.

Is that the case?

The founding fathers also had two eyes each.

Ergo, if you have two eyes, you are racist.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

Ignorance is usually bliss but in your case it seems to be causing you a lot of consternation.

You just can't answer anything because you can't defend the electoral college. No democracy has allowed a LOSER in an election to become president but America. That tells a lot about why it is undemocratic.

China is not a democracy because the people don't get to vote to pick their president. America is very much a democracy but a very deeply flawed one to the point it elects a LOSER.That's all my point was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI the title of your thread is grossly misleading and inflammatory. Using your logic if I agreed with the division of powers into the three branches of the government as put into place by our Founding Fathers, I must also agree with slavery.

Is that the case?

The founding fathers also had two eyes each.

Ergo, if you have two eyes, you are racist.

Founders are very much racist and sexist. They didn't give a vote for blacks and women. It took a civil war to give blacks the vote in theory and it took another century to give them civil rights and real vote. Anyone who thinks founders are preachers of equality of all humans are just idiots. They are no more better men than other men of their times.

[Anonymous]

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.

Regardless of race and party, OP, you are stupid.

Have you even bothered to read the link? There are historians who have written books on the same topic. Go to Amazon and buy a book to read the evolution of the electoral college. But then that's too much work to learn and disprove yourself, so better be an ignoramus who knows everything by sheer existence.

[Anonymous]

OP is unhinged. The crying isn't a good look.

[Anonymous]

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.

The last time CA went red was in 1988, right? And it was a red state for many years prior to.

It's now blue b/c of the changing demographics. I said to my husband the morning of the election that they should just call CA. Maryland's the same way now, although it did go R for Reagan, Bush and Nixon, I believe. So it's a bit more "flexible."

The EC is a very odd way of determining a winner. I've always been against it, but who am I anyway?