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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "If you agree with the Electoral College, you agree with Slavery"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

It's 'that simple', eh?  One of these days, the roles will be reversed.  So, that means you're not aware of it yet, but you have deemed your future self racist also.[/quote]

Not PP. All 4 times some one became president without winning the popular vote is a republican. Even if a democrat somehow loses the popular vote and wins by EC, it is still wrong that ANY VOTE is disenfranchised regardless of whether it is a dem vote or repub vote.

Besides the GOP has won the popular vote ONLY 1/7 elections. That is bare minimum support and is absolutely unsustainable. How long can the GOP keep winning like this? [/quote]

Okay, PP. I want you to name every President that has won the popular vote.

You can't. It's a trick question. No one has ever won the "popular vote." A national popular vote for President in the US does not exist any more than pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

Each of the 51 regional elections is not a direct vote for President either, so no one is disenfranchised. It is a vote for regional electors who then get to vote for President.

As to disenfranchise:
[img]http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a5/a5fd9f50473ea78ab4a5668771803996dfaebe931facffc060a9c530337dc7e7.jpg[/img][/quote]

Acting smart doesn't make you intelligent. If the loser becomes president after a deficit of 3 million votes and 2%, then it by default means those 3 million voters are DISENFRANCHISED. It means in America, only in America, that votes in a rural state like WY is worth 3 votes in CA or TX or NY.

Then why conduct elections, you might as well let the state electors elect the president. Atleast there won't be any pretense of being a democracy. China does it without any pretense and they seem to get much smarter leaders every decade. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics