I've changed my mind about the Electoral College

A statement is not a proof or refutation.



It's just vacuous stuttering.

Vote devaluation in the electoral college occurs because EC votes are not entirely apportioned by state population. :rolleyes:

How does any functioning adult not know this?
 
Proof?

They are reapportioned every ten years based upon the census as per the Constitution.
In the last reapportionment, some states gained one, some states lost one due to population shifts which makes Keith's point, that California's votes are being diluted (and rural districts are being augmented), a fallacy.

I wish you people had something to offer other than name-calling, denigration and the childish NUH-HUH!!!
 
Ooh, agenda items are being advanced by politically corrupted courts?

Which agenda items are being advanced? What's on the rest of that agenda?

For instance a dozen federal court cases brought before liberal activist judges that assert incorrectly the lack congressional plenary powers in immigration and the President's lack of authority in applying existing immigration law, all shot down by the SCOTUS. The agenda item being court decisions favoring a policy of open borders.
 
If we could just rid ourselves of that pesky Texas....



I’m more concerned with the next Constitutional Convention happening. But, yes, one person one vote.
 

That compact would not be enforceable. I'm sure you know that when you punch out the chad or mark the X or push the button next to a candidate's name in a presidential election, you are not voting for that candidate. Instead, you are voting for a group of electors who have promised to vote for that candidate. If some or all the electors choose to vote for somebody else, you are SOL. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change this and, even then, I'm not sure the change could be enforced.
 
Did aj call sigh a cunt again for smacking him around?


This place needs more cunts of the sigh variety.


That compact would not be enforceable. I'm sure you know that when you punch out the chad or mark the X or push the button next to a candidate's name in a presidential election, you are not voting for that candidate. Instead, you are voting for a group of electors who have promised to vote for that candidate. If some or all the electors choose to vote for somebody else, you are SOL. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change this and, even then, I'm not sure the change could be enforced.

I’m being to believe that you enjoy being wrong. I’ll not feed your fetish toady.
 
If we could just rid ourselves of that pesky Texas....



I’m more concerned with the next Constitutional Convention happening. But, yes, one person one vote.

Hoping for new shit or to get rid of old shit? :confused:
 
Sorry, but with things the way they currently are I do not want a Constitutional Convention. I'm very happy with the old one, thanks!
 
Hoping for new shit or to get rid of old shit? :confused:

First on the agenda should be to explicitly state the obvious that it is a compact between the states, that is a voluntary pact- not a suicide pact, and that any state can withdraw from the union at any time for any reason. There needs to be some explicit language about how you untangle the finances involved with such an exit.

Balanced budget amendment always should have been obvious. A minimum to override the balanced budget and deficit spending should require exigent circumstances and the same kind of majorities that are required to amend the Constitution.
 
What a phenomenon. People who don't speak to the topic, but to the person, lamenting that they need more allies...



:eek:

They cannot be nasty enough on their own?
 
What a phenomenon. People who don't speak to the topic, but to the person, lamenting that they need more allies...



:eek:

They cannot be nasty enough on their own?

On their own? You're on your 3rd alt today, you disingenuous dumbfuck.
 
Yes.

It tempers what is so bad about mob rule.

It gives a voice to the other 44-45 states that don't have numerous and or an uber sized population/money center and tempers the voice of those that do.

Well crap. I have to agree with that. :)
 
First on the agenda should be to explicitly state the obvious that it is a compact between the states, that is a voluntary pact- not a suicide pact, and that any state can withdraw from the union at any time for any reason. There needs to be some explicit language about how you untangle the finances involved with such an exit.

Balanced budget amendment always should have been obvious. A minimum to override the balanced budget and deficit spending should require exigent circumstances and the same kind of majorities that are required to amend the Constitution.

First one...no. I don't think there should be any leaving the union.

If you really hate the USA that much you just need to get the fuck out. Can't take the state with you.

Second point is all good....adjust taxing appropriately and make it a fair tax, not a progressive/punitive one.

We would all be paying much higher taxes for some time to come, but it would be better long term.


I personally would like to see an economic freedom amendment, end all these prohibitions/controls....especially among individual/sole proprietorships that don't demonstrate an eminent threat to others. Open markets, no arbitrary restrictions on commerce.
 
Really?

Third? Pray tell, which ones?

Ooops!!

That's a direct question asking for something other than vague shit talking and name calling......Luk doesn't like that AT ALL.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for any response of substance, he's not real big on those either.
 
First one...no. I don't think there should be any leaving the union.

If you really hate the USA that much you just need to get the fuck out. Can't take the state with you.

Second point is all good....adjust taxing appropriately and make it a fair tax, not a progressive/punitive one.

We would all be paying much higher taxes for some time to come, but it would be better long term.


I personally would like to see an economic freedom amendment, end all these prohibitions/controls....especially among individual/sole proprietorships that don't demonstrate an eminent threat to others. Open markets, no arbitrary restrictions on commerce.

Bullshit. If the STATE and a reasonable majority of its inhabitants have no interest in being a part of the Union forcing them to be a part of the Union is actual enslavement. It's cause for an Insurgency.

If an article 5 convention was held dissolving the current Constitution there is no legal Authority whatsoever to compel States to join a new Union. Not that the current Constitution as written justifies what Lincoln did.
 
Bullshit. If the STATE and a reasonable majority of its inhabitants have no interest in being a part of the Union forcing them to be a part of the Union is actual enslavement. It's cause for an Insurgency.

That insurgency giving cause for martial law.

Best of luck with that, I figure it a lot easier to just let people who hate the USA leave, or deport their fuckin' ass.

If an article 5 convention was held dissolving the current Constitution there is no legal Authority whatsoever to compel States to join a new Union. Not that the current Constitution as written justifies what Lincoln did.

Only if you dissolve the current Constitution....which is highly unlikely.
 
Back
Top