Discussion:
Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College
(too old to reply)
Rudy Canoza
2016-11-11 04:50:12 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Penn Senator
Trailers and meth.
Hillary and victory.
Uh, in which alternate universe?
The Infamous Lady Veteran
2016-12-28 01:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lassitude
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Penn Senator
Trailers and meth.
Hillary and victory.
Uh, in which alternate universe?
The one that contains Trump and impeachment.

LV

--

"I rode a tank, held a General's Rank
When the Blitzkrieg raged and the
bodies stank."
---The Rolling Stones
-------------------------------------

Screw the trumpets and their orange
fuehrer! A trumpet is an in animate
object that only makes noise when it
is blown and its buttons are pressed.
Otherwise it is totally useless.
brachycephalic
2016-12-28 04:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Infamous Lady Veteran
Post by Lassitude
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Penn Senator
Trailers and meth.
Hillary and victory.
Uh, in which alternate universe?
The one that contains Trump and impeachment.
Isn't Obummer gonna pardon Hitlery first?
Tea Makes Me Pea
2016-12-28 06:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Infamous Lady Veteran
Post by Lassitude
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Penn Senator
Trailers and meth.
Hillary and victory.
Uh, in which alternate universe?
The one that contains Trump and impeachment.
Impeachment for what, lardbutt?

Being smarter and more successful than liberal Democrats?
Aetherius IV
2016-12-28 06:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:33:49 -0600, The Infamous Lady Veteran
Post by The Infamous Lady Veteran
Post by Lassitude
Post by Tea Makes Me Pea
Post by Penn Senator
Trailers and meth.
Hillary and victory.
Uh, in which alternate universe?
The one that contains Trump and impeachment.
Wrong again shit-for-brains.
Post by The Infamous Lady Veteran
LV
--
PaxPerPoten
2016-12-24 23:35:14 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Gronk
2016-12-30 06:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
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.
A candidate does not need a majority of states. Eleven will do.
Prosimi
2016-12-30 16:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Eleven will do.
You have LOST!

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 17:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
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.
A candidate does not need a majority of states. Eleven will do.
And you didn't get it.... and you won't get 3/4 of the states to vote to
change the electoral college.
--
That's Karma
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-25 21:28:39 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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.
brachycephalic
2016-12-27 20:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
don't vote.
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
2016-12-28 14:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
A distinction without a difference.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-28 17:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
A distinction without a difference.
More bullshit. It's *absolutely* a meaningful difference. It's not the
geography that votes, you stupid clueless fat fuck - it's the people who
vote. As I keep beating into your head, the *same* "criticism" - except
it isn't a meaningful one - applies to every state in its state and
local elections. There are more voters in the population centers, and
those voters determine the election. That is, of course, as it should be.

Suppose, hypothetically, that 90% of the population lives in California
and New York. Why *SHOULDN'T* the president be determined by those
voters? If you took those voters and scattered them at random
throughout the other states, you *WOULD* get the same outcome.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a popular vote system, and in
fact it is the best and fairest - that's why every state uses it to
elect its governor and other statewide offices.

The only real historical reason for the electoral college is slavery.
All the other bullshit excuses are smokescreen.
brachycephalic
2016-12-28 21:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
All the other bullshit excuses
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
2016-12-29 14:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
A distinction without a difference.
More bullshit. It's *absolutely* a meaningful difference. It's not the
geography that votes, you stupid clueless fat fuck - it's the people who
vote. As I keep beating into your head, the *same* "criticism" - except
it isn't a meaningful one - applies to every state in its state and
local elections. There are more voters in the population centers, and
those voters determine the election. That is, of course, as it should be.
Suppose, hypothetically, that 90% of the population lives in California
and New York. Why *SHOULDN'T* the president be determined by those
voters? If you took those voters and scattered them at random
throughout the other states, you *WOULD* get the same outcome.
Because the Founding Fathers were smart enough to design a system that
would represent ALL residents, not just liberal Democrats living in
liberal statesz.
Post by Rudy Canoza
There is nothing inherently wrong with a popular vote system, and in
fact it is the best and fairest - that's why every state uses it to
elect its governor and other statewide offices.
The Founding Fathers felt otherwise.
Post by Rudy Canoza
The only real historical reason for the electoral college is slavery.
All the other bullshit excuses are smokescreen.
Assumes facts not in evidence once again.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 16:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
A distinction without a difference.
More bullshit. It's *absolutely* a meaningful difference. It's not the
geography that votes, you stupid clueless fat fuck - it's the people who
vote. As I keep beating into your head, the *same* "criticism" - except
it isn't a meaningful one - applies to every state in its state and
local elections. There are more voters in the population centers, and
those voters determine the election. That is, of course, as it should be.
Suppose, hypothetically, that 90% of the population lives in California
and New York. Why *SHOULDN'T* the president be determined by those
voters? If you took those voters and scattered them at random
throughout the other states, you *WOULD* get the same outcome.
Because the Founding Fathers were smart enough to design a system that
would represent ALL residents
It does nothing of the kind. It lets a very tiny number of voters in a
very small number of states decide the election.
brachycephalic
2016-12-29 17:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
It does nothing
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
2016-12-30 15:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
A distinction without a difference.
More bullshit. It's *absolutely* a meaningful difference. It's not the
geography that votes, you stupid clueless fat fuck - it's the people who
vote. As I keep beating into your head, the *same* "criticism" - except
it isn't a meaningful one - applies to every state in its state and
local elections. There are more voters in the population centers, and
those voters determine the election. That is, of course, as it should be.
Suppose, hypothetically, that 90% of the population lives in California
and New York. Why *SHOULDN'T* the president be determined by those
voters? If you took those voters and scattered them at random
throughout the other states, you *WOULD* get the same outcome.
Because the Founding Fathers were smart enough to design a system that
would represent ALL residents
It does nothing of the kind. It lets a very tiny number of voters in a
very small number of states decide the election.
Support your claim.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-30 17:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
A distinction without a difference.
More bullshit. It's *absolutely* a meaningful difference. It's not the
geography that votes, you stupid clueless fat fuck - it's the people who
vote. As I keep beating into your head, the *same* "criticism" - except
it isn't a meaningful one - applies to every state in its state and
local elections. There are more voters in the population centers, and
those voters determine the election. That is, of course, as it should be.
Suppose, hypothetically, that 90% of the population lives in California
and New York. Why *SHOULDN'T* the president be determined by those
voters? If you took those voters and scattered them at random
throughout the other states, you *WOULD* get the same outcome.
Because the Founding Fathers were smart enough to design a system that
would represent ALL residents
It does nothing of the kind. It lets a very tiny number of voters in a
very small number of states decide the election.
Support your claim.
Done.

Kevrob
2016-12-29 23:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
A distinction without a difference.
More bullshit. It's *absolutely* a meaningful difference. It's not the
geography that votes, you stupid clueless fat fuck - it's the people who
vote. As I keep beating into your head, the *same* "criticism" - except
it isn't a meaningful one - applies to every state in its state and
local elections. There are more voters in the population centers, and
those voters determine the election. That is, of course, as it should be.
Suppose, hypothetically, that 90% of the population lives in California
and New York. Why *SHOULDN'T* the president be determined by those
voters? If you took those voters and scattered them at random
throughout the other states, you *WOULD* get the same outcome.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a popular vote system, and in
fact it is the best and fairest - that's why every state uses it to
elect its governor and other statewide offices.
The only real historical reason for the electoral college is slavery.
All the other bullshit excuses are smokescreen.
As a fellow libertarian, I'd be very wary of a strict majoritarian
electoral system. Have you never heard the phrase "tyranny of the
majority?" Adams used it, Tocqueville popularized it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

The US is a federal, not a unitary state, which is one reason for
having 50 elections instead of 1 for President. The British have
650 separate elections for the House of Commons, with the resulting
MPs voting for the PM. Prime ministers have received the majority
of votes from MPs who, cumulatively, have not received a majority
of popular votes on an all-UK basis. The only difference between that
kind of election for executive and what the US does is the lack of
(approximately) uniform constituencies for electors, and the weighting
of the EC votes towards less populous states.

[quote]

Plurality voting works to the advantage of the larger parties,
and in most circumstances the winning party in particular, which
is usually over-represented at the expense of third parties, and
often at the expense of its major challenger as well. Nonetheless,
under first-past-the-post a major party may win more seats than
its main competitor despite receiving fewer votes than the latter,
as was the case of the British elections of 1929 and February 1974
(when Labour won more seats but fewer votes than the Conservatives)
as well as 1951 (when the Conservatives won an overall majority
despite having received fewer votes than Labour). However, the
system usually amplifies the majority attained by the winning party:
in all but one general election since the end of World War II (February
1974), a single party emerged with a clear legislative majority, and
was able to subsequently form a government.

[/quote]

http://www.electionresources.org/uk/#PLURALITY

The US is not unique in having distortions caused by close races.

I'd prefer some sort of proportional representation* in our House
seats, since I'm a third-party guy. If we were going to have a
Presidential election by popular vote, a runoff, either in a two-stage
election, a la France, or one of the alternate voting systems such
as Instant Runoff or Approval Voting would be a good idea. I wouldn't
want a President elected with a small plurality of the popular vote, with
a large field splitting the rest of the vote.

6% of us voted neither for the Haircut nor The Pantsuit. HRC
only topped Trump by 2% out of 100%. Yes, that's nearly 2.9 million
votes, but given that over 8 million couldn't stand either of these
wretches, that's not such a big number.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php

Of course, pure majoritarianism would allow 50% + 1 to repeal the
Bill of Rights and run roughshod over any minority position. I'll
pass on that.

Kevin R

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
Gronk
2016-12-30 06:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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.
Wrong. Eleven states - the most populated ones - wins.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
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.
Prosimi
2016-12-30 16:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Eleven states - the most populated ones - wins.
You have LOST!

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 17:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
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.
Wrong. Eleven states - the most populated ones - wins.
Without the electoral college it will take fewer. And a candidate can
give free stuff to only those BIGGER cities and the rest of the NATION
will be ignored and receive no Federal aid. Becaue their votes won't
count.


As it is the Feds have to help people like those RUST BELT working class
people that they tried to ignore because they were NOT in a BIG city or
the BIGGER highly populated states.
--
That's Karma
NoBody
2016-12-27 15:18:53 UTC
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
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.
brachycephalic
2016-12-27 20:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Now fuck off.
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
2016-12-28 14:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
Support your claim.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Now fuck off.
What a child you are...
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-28 17:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
Support your claim.
Already done. In every close election - i.e., *not* 1964, 1972 or 1984
- the winner has won at least three of those states, usually more. This
has been true even though Republican winners lost California and New York.

Fuck off. You're simply a partisan liar.
brachycephalic
2016-12-28 21:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off.
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.
brachycephalic
2016-12-28 21:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off.
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
2016-12-29 14:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
Support your claim.
Already done. In every close election - i.e., *not* 1964, 1972 or 1984
- the winner has won at least three of those states, usually more. This
has been true even though Republican winners lost California and New York.
You've claimed the swing states decide EVERY election EVERY time.
You've failed to support that claim with anything credible.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off. You're simply a partisan liar.
What have I lied about exactly? The only person who has made
undocumenet claims thus far is *you*.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 16:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
Support your claim.
Already done. In every close election - i.e., *not* 1964, 1972 or 1984
- the winner has won at least three of those states, usually more. This
has been true even though Republican winners lost California and New York.
You've claimed the swing states decide EVERY election EVERY time.
They decide every close election - every time.
brachycephalic
2016-12-29 17:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
every time.
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
2016-12-30 15:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
Support your claim.
Already done. In every close election - i.e., *not* 1964, 1972 or 1984
- the winner has won at least three of those states, usually more. This
has been true even though Republican winners lost California and New York.
You've claimed the swing states decide EVERY election EVERY time.
They decide every close election - every time.
Now you've modified your claim, but still haven't supported it with
credible cite. Please support your original claim before moving
forward.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-30 17:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
Support your claim.
Already done. In every close election - i.e., *not* 1964, 1972 or 1984
- the winner has won at least three of those states, usually more. This
has been true even though Republican winners lost California and New York.
You've claimed the swing states decide EVERY election EVERY time.
They decide every close election - every time.
Now you've modified your claim
No.
Gronk
2016-12-30 06:33:17 UTC
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.
Under a popular vote system, no "state" would decide the election - voters
would.
What he said.
Prosimi
2016-12-30 15:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
What he said.
Fuck off Cambridge MA. libitard!
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 17:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
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.
Under a popular vote system, no "state" would decide the election - voters
would.
What he said.
Why do you want voters in the BIG cities to decide the election, what do
they know about growing food or living with nature, you think the Nature
Channel is the same as living there and that watching BETV is the same
as growing up in the hood?
--
That's Karma
teaser
2016-12-26 15:40:36 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
brachycephalic
2016-12-27 20:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
No such thing,
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.
brachycephalic
2016-12-27 20:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off.
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
2016-12-28 14:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
You're a perfect example of one. I guess you don't exist (one could
only hope).
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
More childish, unsupported nonsense from you.
Post by Rudy Canoza
It's a vestige of slavery - probably the last one. Time to ditch it.
You've been shown citations that demonstrate the purpose of the
College. Your failure to accept them doesn't make them false.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-28 17:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
You're a perfect example of one.
I'm not. There isn't any. "Lib" as a shorthand for your ignorant
caricature of "liberals" says everything about you. It says you're
stupid, low IQ, shitty character.

Anyway, I'm not a liberal as that term is contemporarily taken to mean.
I'm a libertarian, which is basically the same as a "classical" liberal,
before liberalism inverted 100 years ago and became statism. I'm not a
statist - I'm an anti-statist.
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
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.
More childish, unsupported nonsense
No.
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
It's a vestige of slavery - probably the last one. Time to ditch it.
You've been shown citations that demonstrate the purpose of the
College.
I've been shown the same tired and discredited bullshit that is
completely wrong. I've countered it with *authoritative* citations
showing that the real reason for it was to obtain the ratification of
the slave states. That's the real reason; the rest is bullshit.
brachycephalic
2016-12-28 21:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
That's the real reason; the rest is bullshit.
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.
brachycephalic
2016-12-28 21:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
the rest is bullshit.
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.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-12-28 02:16:57 UTC
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
J. D. Dobrow
2016-12-28 02:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
We don't have a direct democracy.
Smiler
2016-12-28 21:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. D. Dobrow
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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/
Post by J. D. Dobrow
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by R. Dean
Post by Rudy Canoza
defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-
college
Post by J. D. Dobrow
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by R. Dean
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. 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
We don't have a direct democracy.
What's wrong with a direct democracy?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Kadaitcha Man
2016-12-29 01:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Smiler, goodness is poison to thy stomach. Ye are a long-tongued
devil-incarnate, a crusty tongue o' th' common mouth, a dissembling
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J. D. Dobrow
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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/
Post by J. D. Dobrow
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by R. Dean
Post by Rudy Canoza
defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-
college
Post by J. D. Dobrow
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by R. Dean
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. 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
We don't have a direct democracy.
What's wrong with a direct democracy?
Where's that proof you owe me?
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by J. D. Dobrow
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Now you're trying to confuse him with sciencey stuff.
...wrote the fuckwit who believes the moon orbits earth the same way a
ball on a string spun about the head rotates.
I don't believe it, liar. I know it and can prove it.
--
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
brachycephalic
2016-12-28 04:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Beasts like you foul its nest.
Jerry Buchanan
2016-12-28 07:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
That's a disingenuous question - typical for a left-wing extremist.

*You* don't believe in democracy. You don't believe that all laws
should be enacted by the voters. You don't believe that the voters
should approve all appointments by the executive (local, state or
federal.) You don't believe that the voters should approve treaties.

Shut the fuck up about "democracy." You don't believe in it, you filthy
lying cunt.
brachycephalic
2016-12-28 15:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
filthy lying cunt.
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
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.
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.
brachycephalic
2016-12-28 15:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
you filthy lying cunt.
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
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.
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
2016-12-28 14:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-12-29 02:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 02:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
You didn't know that until I told you.
brachycephalic
2016-12-29 04:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
You didn't know
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.
S***@aol.com
2016-12-29 03:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:10:19 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
Too late bitch, get over it.
Mattb.
2016-12-29 03:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:10:19 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
Can you provide proof of this??
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 03:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by S***@aol.com
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:10:19 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
Can you provide proof of this??
It's not the kind of thing you can "prove", but there is evidence for it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-electoral-college/2012/11/02/2d45c526-1f85-11e2-afca-58c2f5789c5d_story.html?utm_term=.fd217b9bd6ba
brachycephalic
2016-12-29 04:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
It's not the kind of thing you can "prove",
Do tell, Jonathan Ball the sleazebag liar!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for a state's
representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced if a state
unconstitutionally denies people the right to vote. The reduction is in
keeping with the proportion of people denied a vote. This amendment
refers to voting "at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States;" the only place in
the Constitution mentioning electors being selected by popular vote.

On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thaddeus
Stevens, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives,
delivered a speech on the amendment's intent. Regarding Section 2, he
said:[38]

The second section I consider the most important in the article. It
fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall
exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or
abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the
same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel
the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power
as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national
Government, both legislative and executive.[39]

Federal law (2 U.S.C. § 6) implements Section 2's mandate.
First-Post
2016-12-29 03:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by S***@aol.com
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:10:19 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
Can you provide proof of this??
There are countless bullshit articles out there, most often written by
liberal democratic "journalists" preaching the "benefiting the slave
states" manure.
First, there were only 13 states when the EC was instituted (1787) and
nearly all of them were indeed "slave states".
Secondly, well, straight from the FEC:
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

No doubt the file will instantly be labeled as "fake news" by leftists
posters.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 04:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by First-Post
Post by S***@aol.com
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:10:19 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
Can you provide proof of this??
There are countless bullshit articles out there, most often written by
The consensus of scholars is that the electoral college was a sop to the
slave states so they would ratify the Constitution.
brachycephalic
2016-12-29 04:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
The consensus
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.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 06:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by First-Post
Post by S***@aol.com
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:10:19 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
Can you provide proof of this??
There are countless bullshit articles out there, most often written by
liberal democratic "journalists" preaching the "benefiting the slave
states" manure.
First, there were only 13 states when the EC was instituted (1787) and
nearly all of them were indeed "slave states".
More bullshit. Slavery was negligible outside the south. In the 1790
census, of the northern states apart from Maryland - which was a /de
facto/ southern state - there were fewer than 50,000 slaves in total.
Virginia alone had more than 292,000 slaves out of a total population of
748,000. Both Carolinas and Maryland had more than 100,000 slaves each.
Slavery was already outlawed in Massachusetts (and Maine.)
Pennsylvania, the most populous northern state, had fewer than 4,000
slaves - less than 1% of its 1790 population of 434,000.

The electoral college cannot be understood without first understanding
the three-fifths compromise that awarded extra seats in the House of
Representatives to slave states by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person.
In the 1790 census, Virginia had approximately the same number of free
white males of voting age as Pennsylvania, and about 15,000 more than
Massachusetts, the second most populous northern state. However, in the
first Congress, Virginia had 10 members in the House, compared with
eight each for Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. South Carolina, with
well less than *half* as many free white males as New York, had five
members of the House compared with six for New York. The northern state
with the closest population of free white males to South Carolina was
New Hampshire. New Hampshire had 36,000 free white males, compared with
35,600 in South Carolina. However, South Carolina had *five* members of
the House, compared with only three for New Hampshire. South Carolina
therefore had seven votes in the electoral college, compared with five
for New Hampshire. This clearly was bad and wrong and inexcusable.

The slave states - all of them in the south - understood this arithmetic
and held out in the constitutional convention that would unfairly and
*wrongly* reward them with undue influence in determining the
presidency. It is no surprise, then, that six of the first 10
presidents, and *four* of the first five, were from southern slave states.
brachycephalic
2016-12-29 17:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
slave states.
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.
brachycephalic
2016-12-29 18:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
slave states.
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.
brachycephalic
2016-12-29 04:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
Can you provide proof of this??
FUCK NO!!!!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for a state's
representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced if a state
unconstitutionally denies people the right to vote. The reduction is in
keeping with the proportion of people denied a vote. This amendment
refers to voting "at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States;" the only place in
the Constitution mentioning electors being selected by popular vote.

On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thaddeus
Stevens, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives,
delivered a speech on the amendment's intent. Regarding Section 2, he
said:[38]

The second section I consider the most important in the article. It
fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall
exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or
abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the
same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel
the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power
as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national
Government, both legislative and executive.[39]

Federal law (2 U.S.C. § 6) implements Section 2's mandate.
brachycephalic
2016-12-29 04:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
Nope.

That is "fake news" from a lying leftard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for a state's
representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced if a state
unconstitutionally denies people the right to vote. The reduction is in
keeping with the proportion of people denied a vote. This amendment
refers to voting "at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States;" the only place in
the Constitution mentioning electors being selected by popular vote.

On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thaddeus
Stevens, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives,
delivered a speech on the amendment's intent. Regarding Section 2, he
said:[38]

The second section I consider the most important in the article. It
fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall
exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or
abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the
same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel
the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power
as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national
Government, both legislative and executive.[39]

Federal law (2 U.S.C. § 6) implements Section 2's mandate.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
You're an utter moron, Beast!
NoBody
2016-12-29 14:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:10:19 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
There's far more to it than slavery. I see you selectively read as
well.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 16:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by S***@aol.com
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:10:19 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
There's far more to it than slavery.
There isn't. That's the reason for it - the only reason.

The electoral college cannot be understood without first understanding
the three-fifths compromise that awarded extra seats in the House of
Representatives to slave states by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person.
In the 1790 census, Virginia had approximately the same number of free
white males of voting age as Pennsylvania, and about 15,000 more than
Massachusetts, the second most populous northern state. However, in the
first Congress, Virginia had 10 members in the House, compared with
eight each for Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. South Carolina, with
well less than *half* as many free white males as New York, had five
members of the House compared with six for New York. The northern state
with the closest population of free white males to South Carolina was
New Hampshire. New Hampshire had 36,000 free white males, compared with
35,600 in South Carolina. However, South Carolina had *five* members of
the House, compared with only three for New Hampshire. South Carolina
therefore had seven votes in the electoral college, compared with five
for New Hampshire. This clearly was bad and wrong and inexcusable.

The slave states - all of them in the south - understood this arithmetic
and held out in the constitutional convention for a system that would
unfairly and *wrongly* reward them with undue influence in determining
the presidency. It is no surprise, then, that six of the first 10
presidents, and *four* of the first five, were from southern slave states.
brachycephalic
2016-12-29 17:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
lave states
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
2016-12-30 15:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by S***@aol.com
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:10:19 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
There's far more to it than slavery.
There isn't. That's the reason for it - the only reason.
I've already provided citations to the contrary, which you ignored.
You're wrong. Deal with it.
John Baker
2016-12-29 22:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:10:19 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:16:57 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Ask the Founding Fathers. They put the system we have in place. BTW,
we are NOT a democracy.
They put the Electoral College in to appease the slave-holding states.
That's enough reason right there to get rid of it.
Without the EC, we'd never have suffered through eight years of Dubya
and wouldn't now be looking at PE Trump. That Trump could "win" the
election despite losing the popular vote by nearly three million is in
no way right or fair. It's a travesty. That is more than reason
enough.






AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2016-12-29 16:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
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 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.
What's wrong with democracy?
Nothing. In fact, let's have more of it. Let's abolish Congress, and
have the electorate vote on every law. There should be direct election
of the president. The president will appoint cabinet members,
ambassadors, other administrative officials, and the voters must approve
all of them by a direct vote. Every executive branch appointment that
currently requires confirmation by one or both houses of Congress must
now receive approval by the voters in direct election. Federal judges
may be initially appointed by the president, subject to confirmation by
the electorate, but no more life appointments - all federal judges must
run in retention elections, same as state and local judges in your
state. All treaties negotiated with foreign powers will be ratified by
the electorate in a direct election.

It's going to require a few constitutional amendments to achieve this.
Let's get started - today.
Gronk
2016-12-30 06:36:08 UTC
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 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.
Only a con would want to keep such an antiquated system that no one
else in the world has adopted and that we have not imposed on the
countries we beat in war.
Don Kresch
2016-12-30 14:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Only a con would want to keep such an antiquated system that no one
else in the world has adopted and that we have not imposed on the
countries we beat in war.
Non sequitur.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
NoBody
2016-12-30 15:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
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 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.
Only a con would want to keep such an antiquated system that no one
else in the world has adopted and that we have not imposed on the
countries we beat in war.
Only a lib would want to ignore what's written in the Constitution and
find things in it that isn't there. That would be you.
Prosimi
2016-12-30 16:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Only a con would want to keep such an antiquated system that no one
else in the world has adopted
Thanks for dissing our Constitution, traitor!
Prosimi
2016-12-30 16:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Only a con would want to keep such an antiquated system that no one
else in the world has adopted
= enemy of our Constitution.
NoBody
2016-12-27 15:52:16 UTC
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.
Siri Cruise
2016-12-27 16:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by R. Dean
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/d
efending_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.
Or cities form a new kind of political union that becomes popular enough for the
current federal government to cede to it.
--
:-<> 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.
brachycephalic
2016-12-27 20:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Or cities form a new kind of political union that becomes popular enough for the
current federal government to cede to it.
The meth is ruining your ability to think logically.
NoBody
2016-12-28 14:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Post by R. Dean
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/d
efending_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.
Or cities form a new kind of political union that becomes popular enough for the
current federal government to cede to it.
Now what are you babbling about. Please restate your argument in a
coherent fashion.
Gronk
2016-12-30 06:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Dean
The day may come that a few large cities may decide for the rest of the
country.
Cities don't vote.
Prosimi
2016-12-30 16:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Cities don't vote.
Are you a simpleton?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 17:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by R. Dean
The day may come that a few large cities may decide for the rest of the
country.
Cities don't vote.
Yes they do.... they also get welfare and food stamps.
--
That's Karma
Loading...