Discussion:
Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College
Add Reply
Rudy Canoza
2016-11-11 04:50:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college


What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.

Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.

We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.

I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-11 05:11:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is
that the country was founded as a union of *equal*
sovereign states, and the Constitution was written
expressly to recognize and make use of the power of the
states.
Well, tell that to the repubs living in California and the Dems living in Alabama. In both cases, their vote is about as useful as a handful of fresh feces!
Post by Rudy Canoza
This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending
the Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and
approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress - already an
anti-majoritarian threshold - are submitted to the states
for ratification, and must be approved by 3/4 of state
legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and
36 states have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject
it, and the remaining two states to decide are California
and Wyoming. The California legislature, dominated by
leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the amendment -
say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The
amendment *FAILS* - and this is good, and just. This is
just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to
be one, and it is most excellent that we are not one.
Generally, majority sentiment prevails, but there is
nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If anything,
simple majority rule should *never* decide the very
important issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad
and wrong.
There is nothing wrong with "mob rule", that is, so long as the mob is not voting to violate someone or some group's, rights. That's why we have a "bill a rights", to prevent the majority from using their awesome power inappropriately.
Post by Rudy Canoza
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there
will be *NO* serious move to eliminate the Electoral
College in my lifetime. For one thing, it would take a
constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully - and see
above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There
is simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population
red states in the heartland are going to vote to ditch the
Electoral College, or any other constitutional provision
that favors them at the expense of the big coastal People's
Republics.
Wait. I'm confused. The title of this post was "Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College", but what are the "two very sound reasons"? All i got from reading this is that (1) Removing the EC is hard, and (2) America is not a popular democracy.
Mattb.
2016-11-11 05:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:11:16 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Rudy Canoza
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is
that the country was founded as a union of *equal*
sovereign states, and the Constitution was written
expressly to recognize and make use of the power of the
states.
Well, tell that to the repubs living in California and the Dems living in Alabama. In both cases, their vote is about as useful as a handful of fresh feces!
Post by Rudy Canoza
This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending
the Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and
approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress - already an
anti-majoritarian threshold - are submitted to the states
for ratification, and must be approved by 3/4 of state
legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and
36 states have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject
it, and the remaining two states to decide are California
and Wyoming. The California legislature, dominated by
leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the amendment -
say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The
amendment *FAILS* - and this is good, and just. This is
just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to
be one, and it is most excellent that we are not one.
Generally, majority sentiment prevails, but there is
nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If anything,
simple majority rule should *never* decide the very
important issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad
and wrong.
There is nothing wrong with "mob rule", that is, so long as the mob is not voting to violate someone or some group's, rights. That's why we have a "bill a rights", to prevent the majority from using their awesome power inappropriately.
Post by Rudy Canoza
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there
will be *NO* serious move to eliminate the Electoral
College in my lifetime. For one thing, it would take a
constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully - and see
above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There
is simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population
red states in the heartland are going to vote to ditch the
Electoral College, or any other constitutional provision
that favors them at the expense of the big coastal People's
Republics.
Wait. I'm confused. The title of this post was "Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College", but what are the "two very sound reasons"? All i got from reading this is that (1) Removing the EC is hard, and (2) America is not a popular democracy.
The USA does not run on a unitary system according to the
Constitution.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-11 06:10:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
The USA does not run on a unitary system according to the
Constitution.
Which is exactly the problem in regards to the EC.

The purpose of a presidential election is to choose a _single_ person who will serve the *ENTIRE* American populace from the executive branch. When we create a system that defines the "worth of your vote" based on the majority political persuasion in your home state, we remove the power of the individual, and give that power to a handful of state electors. Like i stated earlier: the vote of a Democrat living in Alabama or the vote of a Republican living in California is *WORTHLESS*.

I hear talk all the time about "disenfranchised voters". But what could possibly be more disenfranchising than a vote that is meaningless? The stench of the greatest disenfranchisement of the American voter has been under our noses since the FF signed the bloody declaration!
Mattb.
2016-11-11 07:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:10:07 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Mattb.
The USA does not run on a unitary system according to the
Constitution.
Which is exactly the problem in regards to the EC.
The purpose of a presidential election is to choose a _single_ person who will serve the *ENTIRE* American populace from the executive branch. When we create a system that defines the "worth of your vote" based on the majority political persuasion in your home state, we remove the power of the individual, and give that power to a handful of state electors. Like i stated earlier: the vote of a Democrat living in Alabama or the vote of a Republican living in California is *WORTHLESS*.
I hear talk all the time about "disenfranchised voters". But what could possibly be more disenfranchising than a vote that is meaningless? The stench of the greatest disenfranchisement of the American voter has been under our noses since the FF signed the bloody declaration!
Well the difference is about 400K so far. I do not really like Trump
but I for one am not willing to vote for any politician that wants to
change the Constitution none can be trusted right or left. It may not
be perfect but for as old as it is the Constitution was well written.
If some had their way the big cities would rule us all. This election
showed one thing Obama's policy caused this. Hillary might have won
if Obama hadn't campaigned for her. Democrats in some areas actually
changed side because she came to be Obama continuation rather than a
change.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-11 07:44:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Well the difference is about 400K so far. I do not really
like Trump but I for one am not willing to vote for any
politician that wants to change the Constitution none can
be trusted right or left.
Part of me wants to compose an acerbic quip utilizing the power of the 14th amendment as a counter argument, but since you have always been a very reasonable person, i won't hit "below the belt". O:-)
It may not be perfect but for as old as it is the
Constitution was well written. If some had their way the
big cities would rule us all. This election showed one
thing Obama's policy caused this. Hillary might have won
if Obama hadn't campaigned for her. Democrats in some
areas actually changed side because she came to be Obama
continuation rather than a change.
Yes. The American people have become sick and tired of Obama's constant lecturing. And now with the imminent removal of his "signature act" (ObamaCare), his presidency is going to go down as insignificant to history. He was the first black president, but that's all he's got. And you know what, he can only blame himself for the failure. He could have been one the greats. A modern day Lincoln! But he chose to play dirty, nasty politics instead. If only he had taken the heroic example of MLK and Mandella, instead of the divisive example of Pelosi and Reed.
Mattb.
2016-11-11 22:33:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:44:00 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Well the difference is about 400K so far. I do not really
like Trump but I for one am not willing to vote for any
politician that wants to change the Constitution none can
be trusted right or left.
Part of me wants to compose an acerbic quip utilizing the power of the 14th amendment as a counter argument, but since you have always been a very reasonable person, i won't hit "below the belt". O:-)
Don't call me that I have a reputation.
Post by Rick Johnson
It may not be perfect but for as old as it is the
Constitution was well written. If some had their way the
big cities would rule us all. This election showed one
thing Obama's policy caused this. Hillary might have won
if Obama hadn't campaigned for her. Democrats in some
areas actually changed side because she came to be Obama
continuation rather than a change.
Yes. The American people have become sick and tired of Obama's constant lecturing. And now with the imminent removal of his "signature act" (ObamaCare), his presidency is going to go down as insignificant to history. He was the first black president, but that's all he's got. And you know what, he can only blame himself for the failure. He could have been one the greats. A modern day Lincoln! But he chose to play dirty, nasty politics instead. If only he had taken the heroic example of MLK and Mandella, instead of the divisive example of Pelosi and Reed.
Obama did let the majority of people down. Most of what he did was
focused on a small group. His Obamacare program for instance might
have help the poor but is so expensive to use than many in the middle
class can't afford to use it with the deductibles and co-pays. They
have insurance they can't afford to use and that needs to be fixed.

I don't know which I dislike more Obama or Bush Jr.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-12 00:28:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
I don't know which I dislike more Obama or Bush Jr.
That's a tough decision for sure.

You know, I had not realized it until now, but between Dubya and Obama, we have been living through 16 years of hell.

Initially i had no strong feelings regarding Dubya. I guess you could say i was apathetic to his ascension. I mean, i knew he rode into the white house clinging to the coattails of his father, but, whatever...

Then after he failed (knowingly or unknowing) to properly destroy the people that attacked us on 911, my opinion of him began to change. Little did i know, that not only did 911 mark one the most horrible days in modern American history, it also marked the beginning of a long string of failures, idiotic bumbling, poor leadership, and worst of all, *CONTEMPT* for the constitution at the highest levels of the executive branch!

From Dubya's blatant handicapping of our fighting men and women via self-destructive ROI, to his utter disdain for the ideals of freedom that manifested as that "constitutional abomination" otherwise known as the Patriot Act, i can't honestly tell you who was a worse president. In fact, in the last 16 years, the only policy more anti-American than ObamaCare *IS* the Patriot Act itself!

So there you have it folks.

Two consecutive presidents, from two opposing political parties, who *BOTH* enjoyed two terms, and who *BOTH* love wiping their elitist asses with the ghawd damn constitution!

16 years of hell.

That is what the American people have been living through!

16 years of *HELL*!
We Will Always Hang FagZ And Castrate Jews
2016-11-16 21:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:44:00 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Well the difference is about 400K so far. I do not really
like Trump but I for one am not willing to vote for any
politician that wants to change the Constitution none can
be trusted right or left.
Part of me wants to compose an acerbic quip utilizing the power of the 14th amendment as a counter argument, but since you have always been a very reasonable person, i won't hit "below the belt". O:-)
Don't call me that I have a reputation.
You are NOT reputable? Obama is for the famous and Hollywood
default
2016-11-11 16:53:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:11:16 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Wait. I'm confused. The title of this post was "Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College", but what are the "two very sound reasons"? All i got from reading this is that (1) Removing the EC is hard, and (2) America is not a popular democracy.
That's what I got.

I think we were supposed to infer that because there were 13
semi-independent colonies a couple of hundred years ago that justifies
preserving the status quo by allowing unpopulated states special
privilege in this day and age.
duke
2016-11-11 23:19:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:11:16 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Wait. I'm confused. The title of this post was "Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College", but what are the "two very sound reasons"? All i got from reading this is that (1) Removing the EC is hard, and (2) America is not a popular democracy.
That's what I got.
I think we were supposed to infer that because there were 13
semi-independent colonies a couple of hundred years ago that justifies
preserving the status quo by allowing unpopulated states special
privilege in this day and age.
Fool, what special privilege? The lower the population, the fewer the EC votes
by said state.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Gronk
2016-11-16 05:15:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.

No other country has adopted an electoral college.

We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.

A dozen or so states determines the election.

There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.

This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Cloud Hobbit
2016-11-16 21:30:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.

Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-11-16 21:50:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,

One person, one vote.
--
JD


I'm a "nasty woman" and I vote.
Kevrob
2016-11-16 22:57:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
There was a saying during the decolonialization of new states in the
1950s and 1960s:

One man, one vote, one time.

If you compare the US Electoral College to countries that have a
first-past-the-post system of electing members of parliament, and
parliament elects the prime minister, you can also have a head
of government taking office when the representatives voting for
him only received a plurality of the popular vote. Consider a
country like Canada, who just elected Prime Minister Zoolander,
aka Justin Trudeau:

The Liberal got 54% of the seats, while only taking 39.5% of the popular
vote. That was more than anyone else, but not a majority. Now, I expect
he'd have won a run-off against Harper, if the Canuck PM was elected
by popular vote, but he isn't.

Consider Tony Blair's reelection in the UK in 2001:

Labour got 62% of the seats with just under 41% of the popular vote.

The US is actually going to elect a President far closer to a majority,
of the popular vote, even though someone else is getting more than that.
Neither Trump nor Clinton will hit 50%, and it is a toss-up in my mind
who would win any theoretical run-off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2001

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015

Now, I voted for the Libertarian in a state Clinton won. I didn't contribute
to Shrillary's popular vote total, nor to the Drumpf's electoral college
victory. I lost, and then I lost. (Or, I won, by not sanctioning the nation's
choice of either of these awful people.)

Kevin R
duke
2016-11-17 23:38:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
Then only the population centers will count. The rest of the country will vote
willy-nilly probably at 50-50.

The EC allows for regions to also make their wishes known. Rhode Island's EC
votes count much, much more that a 50-50 split in the popular vote.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-19 18:50:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
Then only the population centers will count.
You have been instructed several times as to why that claim is false.
Ted
2016-12-19 23:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
Then only the population centers will count.
You have been instructed several times as to why that claim is false.
He's an ineducable 'tard.
--
Loading Image... "This troll is one of the
dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and also the most arrogant septic
idiots one can come across."
Catherine L. Cranche
2016-12-19 18:58:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
That's what happens at present: one person, one vote for an elector in
that person's state. Very simple concept.
Gronk
2016-12-25 07:21:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Catherine L. Cranche
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
That's what happens at present: one person, one vote for an elector in
that person's state. Very simple concept.
An elector that can actually vote for anyone they want. Very simple indeed.
teaser
2016-12-26 15:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by Catherine L. Cranche
That's what happens at present: one person, one vote for an elector in
that person's state. Very simple concept.
An elector that can actually vote for anyone they want. Very simple indeed.
Wrong, you lying proggie spaniel-felcher!


http://www.kjct8.com/content/news/Possible-perjury-charge-for-rogue-Colorado-elector-407493215.html


DENVER (AP) - A Colorado elector who refused to cast his vote for
Democrat Hillary Clinton may face criminal charges.

Micheal Baca of Denver was one of nine electors from Colorado, which
voted for Clinton Nov. 8.

The 24-year-old Democrat wore a t-shirt saying "Enough Is Enough" and
refused to cast his ballot for Clinton. Moments before, Baca took an
oath pledging to support the winner of Colorado's popular vote.

Baca tried to organize a national effort to have electors vote for
someone other than Republican President-elect Donald Trump. Baca was
replaced from the panel after he voted for Ohio Republican Gov. John
Kasich, and Clinton received Colorado's nine votes.

Colorado's elections chief said after Baca's removal that Baca could
face perjury charges. But Secretary of State Wayne Williams said a
prosecutor would decide later whether to bring charges, and Baca left
the Capitol on his own.
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-19 19:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said, gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college in place for very sound reasons.

The candidates knew the rules going in and one side fucked it up by ignoring places they should have paid more attention to, they lost.

Could be worse you could be a Libertarian and nobody you wanted got elected.
The Consttution is still in force and the Republic is still safe.

It's not Nazi Germany where a captivating public speaker managed to get himself elected and plunge the world into war. We don't have the philosophic set up that they had, we have a much healthier one and it will keep us focused on not letting one guy push us over the brink.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
--
JD
I'm a "nasty woman" and I vote.
Mike Colangelo
2016-12-19 19:33:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said, gang warfare.
Virtually every other elected office in the country is determined by
popular vote, and I don't hear you complaining about "gang warfare" for
that.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-12-20 01:05:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
John Baker
2016-12-20 01:12:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Well, they kind of dropped the ball on that one, didn't they?






AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Christopher A. Lee
2016-12-20 01:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
Post by John Baker
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare.
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
Post by John Baker
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Yep.
Post by John Baker
Well, they kind of dropped the ball on that one, didn't they?
I think they expected the electorate to be more intelligent and the
candidates more honest.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-12-20 09:56:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in
Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of
congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in
Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was
Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Well, they kind of dropped the ball on that one, didn't they?
Indeed. We've all been convinced that it's all automatic. If the
Founding Fathers wanted the electoral vote automatic, they just would
have declared it so instead of requiring people to vote.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Mr. RagunCajun
2016-12-20 08:03:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.

Have a Ding-Dong.
Siri Cruise
2016-12-20 09:20:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr. RagunCajun
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Ny side is going to win. It's Drumpf voters that are going to lose it all.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Penn Senator
2016-12-20 16:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Mr. RagunCajun
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Ny side is going to win.
Laugh,laugh, laugh, laugh!!!!

When?
Post by Siri Cruise
It's Drumpf voters that are going to lose it all.
Like we did the Electoral College vote?

Enjoy these years of pain, you earned them.
Siri Cruise
2016-12-21 02:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Mr. RagunCajun
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Ny side is going to win.
Laugh,laugh, laugh, laugh!!!!
When?
As Drumpf and Congress deregulate businesses. It's going to be the states with
businesses and capital investors, New York and California, that will receive the
taxes on the profits.
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
It's Drumpf voters that are going to lose it all.
Like we did the Electoral College vote?
Enjoy these years of pain, you earned them.
Loss of healthcare, more pollution, poisonning of your environment, increased
racial strife, bank ripping you off. Too bad you elected state legislatures that
are going to participate in your rape and pillage.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*
2016-12-21 03:24:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Mr. RagunCajun
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Ny side is going to win.
Laugh,laugh, laugh, laugh!!!!
When?
As Drumpf and Congress deregulate businesses. It's going to be the
states with businesses and capital investors, New York and California,
that will receive the taxes on the profits.
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
It's Drumpf voters that are going to lose it all.
Like we did the Electoral College vote?
Enjoy these years of pain, you earned them.
Loss of healthcare, more pollution, poisonning of your environment,
increased racial strife, bank ripping you off. Too bad you elected
state legislatures that are going to participate in your rape and
pillage.
Excellent points!
Tea Makes Me Pea
2016-12-21 06:11:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Mr. RagunCajun
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Ny side is going to win.
Laugh,laugh, laugh, laugh!!!!
When?
As Drumpf and Congress deregulate businesses. It's going to be the
states with businesses and capital investors, New York and California,
that will receive the taxes on the profits.
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by Democrats.

California has one third of the entire welfare base of the USA.

Profits on what? Chinese imported junk? 32% of the businesses in NYC are
Chinese.

Lefty dummies never follow the money.

More than 50% of the wages earned in the USA by "immigrants" leave the USA
via Western Union and Walmart Moneygrams where no taxes or fees are
collected.

And it never returns.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
It's Drumpf voters that are going to lose it all.
Like we did the Electoral College vote?
Enjoy these years of pain, you earned them.
Loss of healthcare, more pollution, poisonning of your environment,
increased racial strife, bank ripping you off. Too bad you elected
state legislatures that are going to participate in your rape and
pillage.
You just described the Obama era.
Siri Cruise
2016-12-21 06:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Mr. RagunCajun
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Ny side is going to win.
Laugh,laugh, laugh, laugh!!!!
When?
As Drumpf and Congress deregulate businesses. It's going to be the
states with businesses and capital investors, New York and California,
that will receive the taxes on the profits.
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by Democrats.
I see how fighting over abortion is bringing profound economic relief.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Penn Senator
2016-12-21 15:46:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by Democrats.
I see how fighting over abortion is bringing profound economic relief.
I see how non sequiturs are food for the amoral.
Archbishop Don Kool
2016-12-21 16:39:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by Democrats.
I see how fighting over abortion is bringing profound economic relief.
I see how non sequiturs are food for the amoral.
She won't understand that.

non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun
plural noun: non sequiturs

a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the
previous argument or statement.
--
Try God!
Don

See you in church.

Shoot straight, not fast.
Penn Senator
2016-12-21 16:43:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by Democrats.
I see how fighting over abortion is bringing profound economic relief.
I see how non sequiturs are food for the amoral.
She won't understand that.
non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun
plural noun: non sequiturs
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the
previous argument or statement.
;-)
Siri Cruise
2016-12-21 17:14:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by Democrats.
I see how fighting over abortion is bringing profound economic relief.
I see how non sequiturs are food for the amoral.
She won't understand that.
non se·qui·tur
?nÀn ?sekw?d?r/
noun
plural noun: non sequiturs
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the
previous argument or statement.
Bread and circusses.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Penn Senator
2016-12-21 17:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by Democrats.
I see how fighting over abortion is bringing profound economic relief.
I see how non sequiturs are food for the amoral.
She won't understand that.
non se·qui·tur
?nän ?sekw?d?r/
noun
plural noun: non sequiturs
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the
previous argument or statement.
Bread and circusses.
Trailers and meth.
Tea Makes Me Pea
2016-12-24 06:46:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by
Democrats.
I see how fighting over abortion is bringing profound economic relief.
I see how non sequiturs are food for the amoral.
She won't understand that.
non se·qui·tur
?nÀn ?sekw?d?r/
noun
plural noun: non sequiturs
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the
previous argument or statement.
Bread and circusses.
Trailers and meth.
Hillary and victory.
Lassitude
2016-12-24 17:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Penn Senator
Trailers and meth.
Hillary and victory.
Uh, in which alternate universe?
PaxPerPoten
2016-12-24 23:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by
Democrats.
I see how fighting over abortion is bringing profound economic relief.
I see how non sequiturs are food for the amoral.
She won't understand that.
non se·qui·tur
?nän ?sekw?d?r/
noun
plural noun: non sequiturs
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the
previous argument or statement.
Bread and circusses.
Trailers and meth.
Hillary and victory.
Democrats and Common sense.
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
S***@aol.com
2016-12-25 03:45:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by Democrats.
I see how fighting over abortion is bringing profound economic relief.
I see how non sequiturs are food for the amoral.
She won't understand that.
non se·qui·tur
?nän ?sekw?d?r/
noun
plural noun: non sequiturs
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the
previous argument or statement.
Bread and circusses.
Trailers and meth.
Hillary and victory.
Democrats and Common sense.
Walmart stores and attractive women.
Tea Makes Me Pea
2016-12-24 06:46:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Mr. RagunCajun
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Ny side is going to win.
Laugh,laugh, laugh, laugh!!!!
When?
As Drumpf and Congress deregulate businesses. It's going to be the
states with businesses and capital investors, New York and
California, that will receive the taxes on the profits.
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by Democrats.
I see how fighting over abortion is bringing profound economic relief.
It's not meant to. It's a diversion from the right, just like gay
marriage was for the left. Two words, "abortion ban" is enough to spin up
liberals and have them endlessly gobbling over inconsequential issues for
months.
John Baker
2016-12-21 14:21:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 06:11:18 -0000 (UTC), Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Mr. RagunCajun
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Ny side is going to win.
Laugh,laugh, laugh, laugh!!!!
When?
As Drumpf and Congress deregulate businesses. It's going to be the
states with businesses and capital investors, New York and California,
that will receive the taxes on the profits.
The two biggest welfare states in the union, both run by Democrats.
Actually, Sunshine, red states are by far the biggest welfare
recipients, to the point where some of them receive more than they pay
in.






AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Archbishop Don Kool
2016-12-20 17:24:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
--
Try God!
Don

See you in church.

Shoot straight, not fast.
Penn Senator
2016-12-20 17:30:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional
amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
Archbishop Don Kool
2016-12-20 18:08:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional
amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
The vacuum it would encounter would be catastrophic.
--
Try God!
Don

See you in church.

Shoot straight, not fast.
Penn Senator
2016-12-20 18:09:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the
Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
The vacuum it would encounter would be catastrophic.
Rapid depressurization and loss of structural integrity.

Oh the humanity!
Archbishop Don Kool
2016-12-21 00:17:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the
Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
The vacuum it would encounter would be catastrophic.
Rapid depressurization and loss of structural integrity.
Oh the humanity!
There are massive electrical blackouts if she gets near a wind turbine
array.
--
Try God!
Don

See you in church.

Shoot straight, not fast.
Penn Senator
2016-12-21 00:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In article
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the
Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading
the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in
Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of
congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in
Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was
Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never
ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the
kool
aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
The vacuum it would encounter would be catastrophic.
Rapid depressurization and loss of structural integrity.
Oh the humanity!
There are massive electrical blackouts if she gets near a wind turbine
array.
OK now, this is a lot worse than the birds that end up caught in her
gravitational vortex...
Archbishop Don Kool
2016-12-21 00:35:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:50:45 PM UTC-8, Jeanne
Douglas
In article
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5, Greg Stearns
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the
president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy
situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th
Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was
already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued
for
the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was
doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading
the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in
Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the
South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of
congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in
Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was
Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never
ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college
just
fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the
kool
aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly
like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the
electoral
college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
The vacuum it would encounter would be catastrophic.
Rapid depressurization and loss of structural integrity.
Oh the humanity!
There are massive electrical blackouts if she gets near a wind turbine
array.
OK now, this is a lot worse than the birds that end up caught in her
gravitational vortex...
That and aircraft. Some have never been found.
--
Try God!
Don

See you in church.

Shoot straight, not fast.
Penn Senator
2016-12-21 00:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
In article
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:50:45 PM UTC-8, Jeanne
Douglas
In article
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5, Greg Stearns
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College
undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the
Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct
popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The
founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the
president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy
situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th
Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was
already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued
for
the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was
doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading
the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in
Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the
South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of
congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in
Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was
Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their
otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never
ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college
just
fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the
kool
aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the
electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly
like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the
electoral
college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
The vacuum it would encounter would be catastrophic.
Rapid depressurization and loss of structural integrity.
Oh the humanity!
There are massive electrical blackouts if she gets near a wind turbine
array.
OK now, this is a lot worse than the birds that end up caught in her
gravitational vortex...
That and aircraft. Some have never been found.
OMG!!!!

Wait, is she old enough to be involved in the Bermuda Triangle
disappearances?
Archbishop Don Kool
2016-12-21 01:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
In article
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:50:45 PM UTC-8, Jeanne
Douglas
In article
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5, Greg Stearns
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College
undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the
Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct
popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The
founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the
president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy
situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th
Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was
already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th
Amendment
was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued
for
the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it.
They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was
doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for
that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading
the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern
representation in
Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To
give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the
South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of
congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in
Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting
citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was
Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their
otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never
ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college
just
fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest
gang
wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the
kool
aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the
electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly
like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional
amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the
electoral
college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
The vacuum it would encounter would be catastrophic.
Rapid depressurization and loss of structural integrity.
Oh the humanity!
There are massive electrical blackouts if she gets near a wind turbine
array.
OK now, this is a lot worse than the birds that end up caught in her
gravitational vortex...
That and aircraft. Some have never been found.
OMG!!!!
Wait, is she old enough to be involved in the Bermuda Triangle
disappearances?
There is Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.
--
Try God!
Don

See you in church.

Shoot straight, not fast.
Penn Senator
2016-12-21 01:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
In article
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:50:45 PM UTC-8, Jeanne
Douglas
In article
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5, Greg
Stearns
I've always considered the electoral college to be in
the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College
undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the
Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct
popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The
founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the
president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically
insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy
situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th
Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was
already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th
Amendment
was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued
for
the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it.
They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was
doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for
that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading
the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern
representation in
Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To
give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in
the
South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of
congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in
Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting
citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was
Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their
otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never
ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college
just
fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest
gang
wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the
kool
aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the
electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly
like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional
amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the
electoral
college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
The vacuum it would encounter would be catastrophic.
Rapid depressurization and loss of structural integrity.
Oh the humanity!
There are massive electrical blackouts if she gets near a wind turbine
array.
OK now, this is a lot worse than the birds that end up caught in her
gravitational vortex...
That and aircraft. Some have never been found.
OMG!!!!
Wait, is she old enough to be involved in the Bermuda Triangle
disappearances?
There is Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.
Ooooh...spooky stuff, and don't forget that Indian Air Force plane...
Archbishop Don Kool
2016-12-21 01:57:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
In article
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:50:45 PM UTC-8, Jeanne
Douglas
In article
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5, Greg
Stearns
I've always considered the electoral college to be in
the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College
undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the
Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct
popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The
founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the
president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically
insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy
situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th
Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it
was
already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and
elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th
Amendment
was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued
for
the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing
it.
They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was
doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives
for
that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading
the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern
representation in
Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To
give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in
the
South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of
congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in
Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting
citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment
was
Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their
otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless
elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states
and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never
ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college
just
fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest
gang
wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the
kool
aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the
electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at
all in
who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly
like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional
amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the
electoral
college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
The vacuum it would encounter would be catastrophic.
Rapid depressurization and loss of structural integrity.
Oh the humanity!
There are massive electrical blackouts if she gets near a wind turbine
array.
OK now, this is a lot worse than the birds that end up caught in her
gravitational vortex...
That and aircraft. Some have never been found.
OMG!!!!
Wait, is she old enough to be involved in the Bermuda Triangle
disappearances?
There is Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.
Ooooh...spooky stuff, and don't forget that Indian Air Force plane...
I'm not sure India should even have an Air Force.
--
Try God!
Don

See you in church.

Shoot straight, not fast.
Penn Senator
2016-12-21 05:20:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by Penn Senator
Post by Archbishop Don Kool
Post by John Baker
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:05:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
In article
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:50:45 PM UTC-8, Jeanne
Douglas
In article
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 9:15:17 PM UTC-8, Gronk
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5, Greg
Stearns
I've always considered the electoral college to be in
the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College
undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the
Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct
popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The
founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for
the
president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically
insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely
messy
situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the
12th
Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it
was
already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and
elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th
Amendment
was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others,
argued
for
the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing
it.
They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was
doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives
for
that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading
the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern
representation in
Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the
slaves. To
give
you
an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people
living in
the
South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the
numbers of
congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in
Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting
citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment
was
Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been
dissolved
in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their
otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless
elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states
and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never
ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college
just
fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest
gang
wins.
With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the
kool
aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the
electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at
all in
who
wins
the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly
like I said,
gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional
amendment, and
that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put the
electoral
college
in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Fat Jeanne, your side lost. By now, you should be used to it.
Have a Ding-Dong.
Don't forget that Fat Jeanne's head is hollow.
Hangar space for the Met Life blimp?
The vacuum it would encounter would be catastrophic.
Rapid depressurization and loss of structural integrity.
Oh the humanity!
There are massive electrical blackouts if she gets near a wind turbine
array.
OK now, this is a lot worse than the birds that end up caught in her
gravitational vortex...
That and aircraft. Some have never been found.
OMG!!!!
Wait, is she old enough to be involved in the Bermuda Triangle
disappearances?
There is Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.
Ooooh...spooky stuff, and don't forget that Indian Air Force plane...
I'm not sure India should even have an Air Force.
Heh, the Pakis are still using gliders...
Tea Makes Me Pea
2016-12-21 06:11:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College
undoubtedly was based on compromise among the delegates to
the Constitutional Convention, but the *fact* of it - and
not having direct popular vote for president - in no way was
a "compromise." The founders always intended *NOT* to have
direct popular vote for the president (nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy
situation and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through
the 12th Amendment (1803). Read it if you don't believe me.
At the time, it was already known that states could collect
votes legitimately and elect representatives through popular
vote. When the 12th Amendment was proposed, the Pennsylvania
delegation, among others, argued for the dissolution of the
Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They contended that
a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for
that year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading the charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern
representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in
the South was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the
numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting
citizens deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th
Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their
otherwise committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the
faithless elector has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never ending leftists for president, I think I like the electoral
college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the
kool aid drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country.
Without the electoral College, the less populated states will
have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly like
I said, gang warfare. To change it would require a Constitutional
amendment, and that's not going to happen. The founding fathers put
the electoral college in place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Yep, insane demagogues like that liar Hillary Clinton.
&
2016-12-21 10:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
In article
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:50:45 PM UTC-8, Jeanne
In article
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 9:15:17 PM UTC-8, Gronk
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5, Greg
I've always considered the electoral college to be
in the category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College
undoubtedly was based on compromise among the delegates
to the Constitutional Convention, but the *fact* of it
- and not having direct popular vote for president - in
no way was a "compromise." The founders always
intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the
president (nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically
insane extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely
messy situation and had to be fixed. That was
accomplished through the 12th Amendment (1803). Read it
if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and
elect representatives through popular vote. When the 12th
Amendment was proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation,
among others, argued for the dissolution of the Electoral
College, rather than fixing it. They contended that a
simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives
for that year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading the charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern
representation in Congress was tremendously enhanced by
counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an idea of how
much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers
of congressmen and senators, gave the Southern states
much more power in Presidential elections than their
actual number of white, male voting citizens deserved.
The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was
Virginia, the largest state. The Electoral College should
have been dissolved in 1802 or at least with the end of
the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their
otherwise committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the
faithless elector has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states
and news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never ending leftists for president, I think I like the
electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest
gang wins. With the electoral college candidates must appeal
to more than the kool aid drinkers, they must appeal to the
whole country. Without the electoral College, the less
populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly
like I said, gang warfare. To change it would require a
Constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen. The
founding fathers put the electoral college in place for very
sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Yep, insane demagogues like that liar Hillary Clinton.
so
WhatShite
2016-12-23 12:10:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
In article
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:50:45 PM UTC-8, Jeanne
In article
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 9:15:17 PM UTC-8, Gronk
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5, Greg
I've always considered the electoral college to be
in the category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College
undoubtedly was based on compromise among the delegates
to the Constitutional Convention, but the *fact* of it
- and not having direct popular vote for president - in
no way was a "compromise." The founders always
intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the
president (nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically
insane extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely
messy situation and had to be fixed. That was
accomplished through the 12th Amendment (1803). Read it
if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and
elect representatives through popular vote. When the 12th
Amendment was proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation,
among others, argued for the dissolution of the Electoral
College, rather than fixing it. They contended that a
simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives
for that year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading the charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern
representation in Congress was tremendously enhanced by
counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an idea of how
much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers
of congressmen and senators, gave the Southern states
much more power in Presidential elections than their
actual number of white, male voting citizens deserved.
The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was
Virginia, the largest state. The Electoral College should
have been dissolved in 1802 or at least with the end of
the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their
otherwise committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the
faithless elector has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states
and news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never ending leftists for president, I think I like the
electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest
gang wins. With the electoral college candidates must appeal
to more than the kool aid drinkers, they must appeal to the
whole country. Without the electoral College, the less
populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly
like I said, gang warfare. To change it would require a
Constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen. The
founding fathers put the electoral college in place for very
sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Yep, insane demagogues like that liar Hillary Clinton.
so
“&” is an infamous and anonymous internet troll. He launches
scurrilous, defamatory, trivializing and false diatribes against
Men’s Rights activists and their posts and against Men’s Rights
organizations. He therefore, has as his goals the disruption of
soc.men and the thwarting of the legitimate goals of the men’s rights
movement, and the denigration, trivialization and discrediting of the
leaders of the men’s rights movement and men’s rights organizations.
Kadaitcha Man
2016-12-23 12:33:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
WhatShite, go rate thy minions, abominable fellow. Ye bragging prince
Post by WhatShite
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
In article
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In article
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 9:15:17 PM UTC-8, Gronk
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5, Greg
I've always considered the electoral college to be
in the category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College
undoubtedly was based on compromise among the delegates
to the Constitutional Convention, but the *fact* of it
- and not having direct popular vote for president - in
no way was a "compromise." The founders always
intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the
president (nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically
insane extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely
messy situation and had to be fixed. That was
accomplished through the 12th Amendment (1803). Read it
if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and
elect representatives through popular vote. When the 12th
Amendment was proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation,
among others, argued for the dissolution of the Electoral
College, rather than fixing it. They contended that a
simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives
for that year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading the charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern
representation in Congress was tremendously enhanced by
counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an idea of how
much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers
of congressmen and senators, gave the Southern states
much more power in Presidential elections than their
actual number of white, male voting citizens deserved.
The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was
Virginia, the largest state. The Electoral College should
have been dissolved in 1802 or at least with the end of
the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their
otherwise committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the
faithless elector has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states
and news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never ending leftists for president, I think I like the
electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest
gang wins. With the electoral college candidates must appeal
to more than the kool aid drinkers, they must appeal to the
whole country. Without the electoral College, the less
populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly
like I said, gang warfare. To change it would require a
Constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen. The
founding fathers put the electoral college in place for very
sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Yep, insane demagogues like that liar Hillary Clinton.
so
“&” is an infamous and anonymous internet troll. He launches
scurrilous, defamatory, trivializing and false diatribes against
Men’s Rights activists and their posts and against Men’s Rights
organizations. He therefore, has as his goals the disruption of
soc.men and the thwarting of the legitimate goals of the men’s rights
movement, and the denigration, trivialization and discrediting of the
leaders of the men’s rights movement and men’s rights organizations.
Good for him.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$***@registered.motzarella.org
Kadaitcha Man
2016-12-23 12:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
WhatShite, why thou art a man of wax. Thou art a burr-headed corruptor
of words, a distempered prater, a rancorous foolish rheum, an accursed
Post by WhatShite
“&” is an infamous and anonymous internet troll. He launches
scurrilous, defamatory, trivializing and false diatribes against
Men’s Rights activists and their posts and against Men’s Rights
organizations. He therefore, has as his goals the disruption of
soc.men and the thwarting of the legitimate goals of the men’s rights
movement, and the denigration, trivialization and discrediting of the
leaders of the men’s rights movement and men’s rights organizations.
PS: Subscribe!
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$***@registered.motzarella.org
Benny Chang
2016-12-24 18:18:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
In article
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In article
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be
in the category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College
undoubtedly was based on compromise among the delegates
to the Constitutional Convention, but the *fact* of it
- and not having direct popular vote for president - in
no way was a "compromise." The founders always
intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the
president (nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically
insane extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely
messy situation and had to be fixed. That was
accomplished through the 12th Amendment (1803). Read it
if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and
elect representatives through popular vote. When the 12th
Amendment was proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation,
among others, argued for the dissolution of the Electoral
College, rather than fixing it. They contended that a
simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives
for that year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison
leading the charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern
representation in Congress was tremendously enhanced by
counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an idea of how
much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers
of congressmen and senators, gave the Southern states
much more power in Presidential elections than their
actual number of white, male voting citizens deserved.
The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was
Virginia, the largest state. The Electoral College should
have been dissolved in 1802 or at least with the end of
the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their
otherwise committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the
faithless elector has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states
and news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is
never ending leftists for president, I think I like the
electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest
gang wins. With the electoral college candidates must appeal
to more than the kool aid drinkers, they must appeal to the
whole country. Without the electoral College, the less
populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works exactly
like I said, gang warfare. To change it would require a
Constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen. The
founding fathers put the electoral college in place for very
sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Yep, insane demagogues like that liar Hillary Clinton.
so
“&” is an infamous and anonymous internet troll. He launches
scurrilous, defamatory, trivializing and false diatribes against
Men’s Rights activists and their posts and against Men’s Rights
organizations. He therefore, has as his goals the disruption of
soc.men and the thwarting of the legitimate goals of the men’s rights
movement, and the denigration, trivialization and discrediting of the
leaders of the men’s rights movement and men’s rights organizations.
I hear he harvests reproductive organs too. With his teeth.
&
2016-12-24 19:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Benny Chang
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
In article
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:50:45 PM UTC-8,
In article
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 9:15:17 PM UTC-8,
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5,
I've always considered the electoral college
to be in the category of a stroke of genius
by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral
College undoubtedly was based on compromise among
the delegates to the Constitutional Convention,
but the *fact* of it - and not having direct
popular vote for president - in no way was a
"compromise." The founders always intended *NOT*
to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an
ideologically insane extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an
extremely messy situation and had to be fixed. That
was accomplished through the 12th Amendment (1803).
Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it
was already known that states could collect votes
legitimately and elect representatives through
popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was proposed,
the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued
for the dissolution of the Electoral College,
rather than fixing it. They contended that a simple
plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the votes
collected along with the votes for Representatives
for that year.
The objection to this came from the South, James
Madison leading the charge. Due to the 3/5
compromise, Southern representation in Congress was
tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the
slaves. To give you an idea of how much this meant,
one of three people living in the South was a
slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers
of congressmen and senators, gave the Southern
states much more power in Presidential elections
than their actual number of white, male voting
citizens deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the
12th Amendment was Virginia, the largest state. The
Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in
war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing
their otherwise committed vote. ALL penalties occur
AFTER the faithless elector has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13
states and news traveled on horseback. But not
anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral
college is never ending leftists for president, I think
I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the
biggest gang wins. With the electoral college
candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country.
Without the electoral College, the less populated
states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works
exactly like I said, gang warfare. To change it would
require a Constitutional amendment, and that's not going to
happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college in
place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Yep, insane demagogues like that liar Hillary Clinton.
so
“&” is an infamous and anonymous internet troll. He launches
scurrilous, defamatory, trivializing and false diatribes against
Men’s Rights activists and their posts and against Men’s
Rights organizations. He therefore, has as his goals the disruption
of soc.men and the thwarting of the legitimate goals of the men’s
rights movement, and the denigration, trivialization and
discrediting of the leaders of the men’s rights movement and
men’s rights organizations.
I hear he harvests reproductive organs too. With his teeth.
i heard that was your mother . i win
&
2016-12-24 18:30:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
fake flooding its to hide online dealing they steal your credit card
numbers too its from peter j ross and alt usenet kooks report them to
fbi . i win
Post by WhatShite
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
In article
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In article
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 9:15:17 PM UTC-8, Gronk
Post by Gronk
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 3:20:44 PM UTC-5,
I've always considered the electoral college to
be in the category of a stroke of genius by the
FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral
College undoubtedly was based on compromise among
the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, but
the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise."
The founders always intended *NOT* to have direct
popular vote for the president (nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an
ideologically insane extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an
extremely messy situation and had to be fixed. That
was accomplished through the 12th Amendment (1803).
Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was
already known that states could collect votes
legitimately and elect representatives through
popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was proposed,
the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for
the dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than
fixing it. They contended that a simple plebiscite
for the presidency was doable, the votes collected
along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James
Madison leading the charge. Due to the 3/5
compromise, Southern representation in Congress was
tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves.
To give you an idea of how much this meant, one of
three people living in the South was a slave. The
Electoral College, based on the numbers of
congressmen and senators, gave the Southern states
much more power in Presidential elections than their
actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th
Amendment was Virginia, the largest state. The
Electoral College should have been dissolved in 1802
or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing
their otherwise committed vote. ALL penalties occur
AFTER the faithless elector has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13
states and news traveled on horseback. But not
anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college
is never ending leftists for president, I think I like
the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the
biggest gang wins. With the electoral college candidates
must appeal to more than the kool aid drinkers, they must
appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at
all in who wins the presidency. I don't see that as a
better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
I think you consider it better because you know it works
exactly like I said, gang warfare. To change it would
require a Constitutional amendment, and that's not going to
happen. The founding fathers put the electoral college in
place for very sound reasons.
Yep. For stopping insane demagogues from becoming President.
Yep, insane demagogues like that liar Hillary Clinton.
so
“&” is an infamous and anonymous internet troll. He launches
scurrilous, defamatory, trivializing and false diatribes against
Men’s Rights activists and their posts and against Men’s Rights
organizations. He therefore, has as his goals the disruption of
soc.men and the thwarting of the legitimate goals of the men’s
rights movement, and the denigration, trivialization and discrediting
of the leaders of the men’s rights movement and men’s rights
organizations.
--
i am & the great . i win
Turi
2016-12-27 03:18:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by &
fake flooding its to hide online dealing they steal your credit card
numbers too its from peter j ross and alt usenet kooks report them to
fbi . i win
Your credit card numbers all belong to us. Why steal when you
can buy and shop conveniently from home?

I can sell minimum 10 good credit card numbers for $25 each and
they will have at least $500 available per card.

Thanks to stupid American democrats and their friends from
India, all American data is dark public domain now.
&
2016-12-27 03:47:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Turi
Post by &
fake flooding its to hide online dealing they steal your credit
card numbers too its from peter j ross and alt usenet kooks report
them to fbi . i win
Your credit card numbers all belong to us.
no they dont
Post by Turi
Why steal when you can
buy and shop conveniently from home?
do you ship by land or water
Post by Turi
I can sell minimum 10 good credit card numbers for $25 each and they
will have at least $500 available per card.
this is reported to fbi
Post by Turi
Thanks to stupid American democrats and their friends from India, all
American data is dark public domain now.
tell it to the judge ass hole . i win
John Baker
2016-12-27 09:08:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Turi
Post by &
fake flooding its to hide online dealing they steal your credit card
numbers too its from peter j ross and alt usenet kooks report them to
fbi . i win
Your credit card numbers all belong to us. Why steal when you
can buy and shop conveniently from home?
I can sell minimum 10 good credit card numbers for $25 each and
they will have at least $500 available per card.
Thanks to stupid American democrats and their friends from
India, all American data is dark public domain now.
And if I believed that, I might be interested in that bridge you're
selling.








AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Malcolm McMahon
2016-11-17 13:41:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
There are definite parallels with the British system. Instead of the EC, we have parliament and the Prime Minister is the head of the largest parliamentary party.

This very often results in a PM who hasn't got the highest popular vote.
Post by Gronk
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
And this can happen in the UK too. Some constituencies are "marginal", others are "safe seats". And guess where government resources have a way of going?
Post by Gronk
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
Why do you think an actual elector is required. and the EC votes aren't applied automatically? As I understand it the EC consists of people precisely because they can override the vote in the case of someone they consider a dangerous demagogue. This seems to have been the founders' big reservation about democracy - that people like Trump exist. No doubt they'd all read Plato's republic in which he says that that's the way democracy always ends - with a demagogue who has the mob behind him. (I don't think they had many military coups in Ancient Greece).
Post by Gronk
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-17 23:36:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
As I understand it the EC consists of people precisely
because they can override the vote in the case of someone
they consider a dangerous demagogue. This seems to have
been the founders' big reservation about democracy - that
people like Trump exist. No doubt they'd all read Plato's
republic in which he says that that's the way democracy
always ends - with a demagogue who has the mob behind him.
(I don't think they had many military coups in Ancient
Greece).
But is it possible to prevent the end of democracy? Even the "grand American democray"?

IMO, no.

Even from our humble beginnings as opinionated lifeforms dwelling on this wretched earth rock, we have dreamed about, and then painstakingly implemented, numerous "grand structural systems" to satisfy our fetish for hierarchy. But history has proven, that all we can do is watch helplessly as these systems are slowly pecked apart by the opposition.

Time is enemy of all systems.

Perhaps Plato's prophecy will be America's ruin... or perhaps our interventionist foreign policy and/or suicidal domestic policies will destroy us first?. But one way or another, our "grand system" is doomed to fail. And no matter how many bandages we apply, or how many "nationalistic revivals" we engineer in the hearts of our peasants, the end will still come for us.
Theramin
2016-11-17 23:31:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
So fucking what?
Mike Colangelo
2016-12-19 18:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
Post by Gronk
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
Irrelevant.
John Baker
2016-12-19 19:10:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
Post by Gronk
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
Irrelevant.
Without the Electoral College, no Republican would ever get near the
White House - which is a bad thing only if you're a Republican who
wants to be President.






AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Mike Colangelo
2016-12-19 19:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[followups vandalism by shitbag repaired]
Post by John Baker
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
Post by Gronk
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
Irrelevant.
Without the Electoral College, no Republican would ever get near the
White House - which is a bad thing only if you're a Republican who
wants to be President.
George W. Bush, of course, won both the popular vote and the electoral
college in 2004.

Try again.
Gronk
2016-12-25 07:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
No, correct.
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
Irrelevant.
They see how it works here and don't want one. RELEVANT.
Don Kresch
2016-12-25 14:50:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
No, correct.
The electoral college prevents having 12 states decide the
election.
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
Irrelevant.
They see how it works here and don't want one. RELEVANT.
No, it's really not.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-25 19:21:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
No, correct.
The electoral college prevents having 12 states decide the
election.
If Liberals can't get the majority of States to elect Hillary.... then
they can't get the 3/4 of the States needed to pass an AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION.

The whole issue is a MOOT POINT.


This is why the Democrats try to use the courts rather then getting
things done according to the constitution.
--
That's Karma
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-25 21:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
No, correct.
The electoral college prevents having 12 states decide the
election.
It doesn't, burrito roller. It makes *six* states decide the election.

Under a popular vote system, no "state" would decide the election -
voters would.
teaser
2016-12-26 15:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
burrito roller.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
NoBody
2016-12-26 16:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
No, correct.
The electoral college prevents having 12 states decide the
election.
It doesn't, burrito roller. It makes *six* states decide the election.
Really? Which 6 states can decide every election?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-26 16:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
No, correct.
The electoral college prevents having 12 states decide the
election.
It doesn't, burrito roller. It makes *six* states decide the election.
Really? Which 6 states can decide every election?
The highest populated State would win the elections, NOT the most states
in agreement. As it is with the electoral college the states with few
voters can come together and win like the 3/4 of the states needed to
pass an amendment, even the lower populated States count equally when
passing an amendment to the constitution.

For an amendment to the constitution, California has the same vote as
South Dakota.

The electoral college is a cross between the Article 5 amendment process
and the one person one vote democratic process. It was actually a
really smart idea.
--
That's Karma
NoBody
2016-12-27 15:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 11:12:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
No, correct.
The electoral college prevents having 12 states decide the
election.
It doesn't, burrito roller. It makes *six* states decide the election.
Really? Which 6 states can decide every election?
The highest populated State would win the elections, NOT the most states
in agreement. As it is with the electoral college the states with few
voters can come together and win like the 3/4 of the states needed to
pass an amendment, even the lower populated States count equally when
passing an amendment to the constitution.
For an amendment to the constitution, California has the same vote as
South Dakota.
The electoral college is a cross between the Article 5 amendment process
and the one person one vote democratic process. It was actually a
really smart idea.
You forgot to add "that only crybaby libs would want to tamper with"
at the end :)
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 16:08:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 11:12:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
No, correct.
The electoral college prevents having 12 states decide the
election.
It doesn't, burrito roller. It makes *six* states decide the election.
Really? Which 6 states can decide every election?
The highest populated State would win the elections,
Bullshit. In a popular vote system, the states don't vote.
NoBody
2016-12-27 15:18:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
No, correct.
The electoral college prevents having 12 states decide the
election.
It doesn't, burrito roller. It makes *six* states decide the election.
Really? Which 6 states can decide every election?
<crickets.wav>
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 16:10:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No, incorrect.
No, correct.
The electoral college prevents having 12 states decide the
election.
It doesn't, burrito roller. It makes *six* states decide the election.
Really? Which 6 states can decide every election?
Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina.

Those are the swing states that decide every election, every time.

Now fuck off.
teaser
2016-12-26 15:40:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Gronk
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
Irrelevant.
They see how it works here and don't want one. RELEVANT.
No proof.

No citations.

Usuppported libitarded froth from a Cambridge Ma. proggie whore.
Cloud Hobbit
2016-11-16 21:19:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
There's little chance IMO that such an amendment would ever get to the floor for a vote. The small state senators know the score and as I have said before, nothing has ever been taken out of the Constitution, but I forgot about prohibition, which didn't really go so well unless you count giving strength and money to the mafia as doing well.

Whenever there's a close election somebody from the losing side will start railing against the Electoral College, but it will never go away. The process works and keeps out extremists.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-17 00:01:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
There's little chance IMO that such an amendment would ever get to the floor for a vote.
I dunno Cloud, just a few weeks ago there was little chance that Trump would be elected. We are living in "interesting times" indeed. :-)

Even though i'd rather have Trump instead of Hillary, i would still like to see the EC removed. Congress members represent their constituents by state, and as such, the elections of these representatives should be a matter for the states to decide. But the president is supposed to represent *EVERYONE*. And that is the reason why every vote must count.
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-19 19:37:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
There's little chance IMO that such an amendment would ever get to the floor for a vote.
I dunno Cloud, just a few weeks ago there was little chance that Trump would be elected. We are living in "interesting times" indeed. :-)
Even though i'd rather have Trump instead of Hillary, i would still like to see the EC removed. Congress members represent their constituents by state, and as such, the elections of these representatives should be a matter for the states to decide. But the president is supposed to represent *EVERYONE*. And that is the reason why every vote must count.
I doubt that anybody will ever vote to remove the EC, especially since it has been an outstanding success and nobody wants to take anything out of the constitution that is not hurting anyone, such as slavery or Prohibition.

The EC forces the Candidates to run to the center and appeal to the fly over states as well. It would be a forgone conclusion who the winner of every presidential election would be if it were a simple majority, the east coast the left coast and Chicago and Detroit. Unless there had been a Democrat that had so seriously fucked things up that another one couldn't get elected, it would be democrats forever and the increasing debt that follows them.

It's not going to change. This one is in the books and there is nothing to do but wait and see if Trump really acts as crazy as people think he is.

If he does, I'll be at the head of head of the line calling for his head.

I wonder how people will act if what he does works?
Mike Colangelo
2016-12-19 19:47:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
There's little chance IMO that such an amendment would ever get to the floor for a vote.
I dunno Cloud, just a few weeks ago there was little chance that Trump would be elected. We are living in "interesting times" indeed. :-)
Even though i'd rather have Trump instead of Hillary, i would still like to see the EC removed. Congress members represent their constituents by state, and as such, the elections of these representatives should be a matter for the states to decide. But the president is supposed to represent *EVERYONE*. And that is the reason why every vote must count.
I doubt that anybody will ever vote to remove the EC, especially since it has been an outstanding success and nobody wants to take anything out of the constitution that is not hurting anyone, such as slavery or Prohibition.
The EC forces the Candidates to run to the center and appeal to the fly over states as well.
The electoral college in no way disposes candidates to give any
attention to "flyover" or rural states. They give all their attention
to swing states, and in those swing states, they give all their
attention to the large urban areas. In Michigan, for example, Clinton
and Trump focused almost exclusively on Detroit and Grand Rapids.
Mike Colangelo
2016-12-20 01:42:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime.
For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
There's little chance IMO that such an amendment would ever get to
the floor for a vote.
I dunno Cloud, just a few weeks ago there was little chance that
Trump would be elected. We are living in "interesting times" indeed. :-)
Even though i'd rather have Trump instead of Hillary, i would still
like to see the EC removed. Congress members represent their
constituents by state, and as such, the elections of these
representatives should be a matter for the states to decide. But the
president is supposed to represent *EVERYONE*. And that is the reason
why every vote must count.
I doubt that anybody will ever vote to remove the EC, especially since
it has been an outstanding success and nobody wants to take anything
out of the constitution that is not hurting anyone, such as slavery or
Prohibition.
The EC forces the Candidates to run to the center and appeal to the
fly over states as well.
The electoral college in no way disposes candidates to give any
attention to "flyover" or rural states. They give all their attention
to swing states, and in those swing states, they give all their
attention to the large urban areas. In Michigan, for example, Clinton
and Trump focused almost exclusively on Detroit and Grand Rapids.
The Electoral College is going to remain a part of this government
The electoral college is not part of the government.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-20 02:28:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime.
For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution.
There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
There's little chance IMO that such an amendment would ever get to
the floor for a vote.
I dunno Cloud, just a few weeks ago there was little chance that
Trump would be elected. We are living in "interesting times" indeed. :-)
Even though i'd rather have Trump instead of Hillary, i would still
like to see the EC removed. Congress members represent their
constituents by state, and as such, the elections of these
representatives should be a matter for the states to decide. But the
president is supposed to represent *EVERYONE*. And that is the reason
why every vote must count.
I doubt that anybody will ever vote to remove the EC, especially since
it has been an outstanding success and nobody wants to take anything
out of the constitution that is not hurting anyone, such as slavery or
Prohibition.
The EC forces the Candidates to run to the center and appeal to the
fly over states as well.
The electoral college in no way disposes candidates to give any
attention to "flyover" or rural states. They give all their attention
to swing states, and in those swing states, they give all their
attention to the large urban areas. In Michigan, for example, Clinton
and Trump focused almost exclusively on Detroit and Grand Rapids.
The Electoral College is going to remain a part of this government
The electoral college is not part of the government.
It is created by the constitution. But for government it doesn't exist.
--
That's Karma
Mattb.
2016-12-20 02:49:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:28:14 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime.
For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution.
There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
There's little chance IMO that such an amendment would ever get to
the floor for a vote.
I dunno Cloud, just a few weeks ago there was little chance that
Trump would be elected. We are living in "interesting times" indeed. :-)
Even though i'd rather have Trump instead of Hillary, i would still
like to see the EC removed. Congress members represent their
constituents by state, and as such, the elections of these
representatives should be a matter for the states to decide. But the
president is supposed to represent *EVERYONE*. And that is the reason
why every vote must count.
I doubt that anybody will ever vote to remove the EC, especially since
it has been an outstanding success and nobody wants to take anything
out of the constitution that is not hurting anyone, such as slavery or
Prohibition.
The EC forces the Candidates to run to the center and appeal to the
fly over states as well.
The electoral college in no way disposes candidates to give any
attention to "flyover" or rural states. They give all their attention
to swing states, and in those swing states, they give all their
attention to the large urban areas. In Michigan, for example, Clinton
and Trump focused almost exclusively on Detroit and Grand Rapids.
The Electoral College is going to remain a part of this government
The electoral college is not part of the government.
It is created by the constitution. But for government it doesn't exist.
Well now that Trump has won wonder if they will let us or at least
Congress see this FBI and CIA evidence about Russia?

Either way the Electoral College isn't going away and California will
not rule the USA.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-20 02:43:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:28:14 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Mike Colangelo
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime.
For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution.
There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
There's little chance IMO that such an amendment would ever get to
the floor for a vote.
I dunno Cloud, just a few weeks ago there was little chance that
Trump would be elected. We are living in "interesting times" indeed. :-)
Even though i'd rather have Trump instead of Hillary, i would still
like to see the EC removed. Congress members represent their
constituents by state, and as such, the elections of these
representatives should be a matter for the states to decide. But the
president is supposed to represent *EVERYONE*. And that is the reason
why every vote must count.
I doubt that anybody will ever vote to remove the EC, especially since
it has been an outstanding success and nobody wants to take anything
out of the constitution that is not hurting anyone, such as slavery or
Prohibition.
The EC forces the Candidates to run to the center and appeal to the
fly over states as well.
The electoral college in no way disposes candidates to give any
attention to "flyover" or rural states. They give all their attention
to swing states, and in those swing states, they give all their
attention to the large urban areas. In Michigan, for example, Clinton
and Trump focused almost exclusively on Detroit and Grand Rapids.
The Electoral College is going to remain a part of this government
The electoral college is not part of the government.
It is created by the constitution. But for government it doesn't exist.
Well now that Trump has won wonder if they will let us or at least
Congress see this FBI and CIA evidence about Russia?
Either way the Electoral College isn't going away and California will
not rule the USA.
I have instructed you on this already. In a popular vote system, states
have no role. It is absurd to say that "California" would control the
electoin.
Penn Senator
2016-12-20 03:07:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
Either way the Electoral College isn't going away and California will
not rule the USA.
AMEN!
R. Dean
2016-12-26 18:04:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
The day may come that a few large cities may decide for the rest of the
country.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-26 20:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Dean
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
The day may come that a few large cities may decide for the rest of the
country.
I've demolished this bullshit too many times to count. In the event of
the abolition of the electoral college, "cities" and "states" will not
determine anything - voters will.
NoBody
2016-12-27 15:22:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by R. Dean
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
The day may come that a few large cities may decide for the rest of the
country.
I've demolished this bullshit too many times to count. In the event of
the abolition of the electoral college, "cities" and "states" will not
determine anything - voters will.
Only a lib would want to tamper with a process that has kept this
country running since inception and replace it with one where a few
population centers decide the President of the country.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 16:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by R. Dean
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
The day may come that a few large cities may decide for the rest of the
country.
I've demolished this bullshit too many times to count. In the event of
the abolition of the electoral college, "cities" and "states" will not
determine anything - voters will.
Only a lib
No such thing, knuckle-dragger.
Post by NoBody
would want to tamper with a process that has kept this
country running
The electoral college has not "kept this country running." Fuck off.

It's a vestige of slavery - probably the last one. Time to ditch it.
NoBody
2016-12-27 15:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Dean
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
The day may come that a few large cities may decide for the rest of the
country.
Unlikely given the process that must be gone through to change the
Constitution.
Loading...