I've changed my mind about the Electoral College

The mob rule fans on the left all say it's outdated....can't say how though.
 
Most people who call for its’ abolition never went to college.
Low IQ individuals.
 
I believe a number of states are going to instruct their electors to vote for the popular winner no matter the electoral outcome. Interesting if true. Used to support the system, now I see it as the tyranny of the minority.

Democrats are susceptible to left wing folklore about the Electoral College. So sad to see the many evolutionary failures of their kind.:D
 
and right wingers called it outdated when they were ascared that romney and obama might have been a closer call than it ended up being.

so, basically, shut up about it. it's stupid.
 
Thanks for the history. The one that gets the most votes should win.

No they shouldnt. You then have California and New York deciding elections. If you take out the new york and california voters and Trump wins by at least 2 million votes.
 
Most people who call for its’ abolition never went to college.
Low IQ individuals.

On a post like this you really should check your grammar twice. :D

And, no, it is usually the well educated who consider the abolition of the electoral college. Those who never went to college rarely know it exists or how it operates.
 
and right wingers called it outdated when they were ascared that romney and obama might have been a closer call than it ended up being.

so, basically, shut up about it. it's stupid.

Except they didn't.

You just don't have a decent argument as to why it's outdated.

So basically, shut up about it, you're stupid....enjoy your Romneycare sucker.:D
 
No they shouldnt. You then have California and New York deciding elections. If you take out the new york and california voters and Trump wins by at least 2 million votes.

That, of course, is the argument that put it in place to begin with. But, no, you have equal vote strength then. People can choose where to live. They shouldn't have their vote devalued in a representative democracy just because they live in a populous state--and they shouldn't have their vote augmented just because they live in a rural area in Iowa.
 
And, no, it is usually the well educated who consider the abolition of the electoral college.

No they don't, they understand there is a reason we give voice to more than 3-4 states in how the country is run.

Unlike the fucking morons who can't come up with a single argument as to why it's "outdated" or wrong.

Those who never went to college rarely know it exists or how it operates.

Unless they made it through the 8th grade......:rolleyes:
 
No they shouldnt. You then have California and New York deciding elections. If you take out the new york and california voters and Trump wins by at least 2 million votes.


Leaving aside that the statement "Trump would have won easily if you just left out the places that didn't vote for him" is both true and totally meaningless, you're making the assumption here is that everyone in California and New York thinks and votes the same way.

Get rid of the Electoral College, and all of a sudden California Republicans and Utah Democrats become relevant, whereas now they aren't.
 
The mob ru
le fans on the left all say it's outdated....can't say how though.


And would not explain how the popular vote is not how the electoral college is better? Hey I agree mob rule is a bad idea but is the college any better?
 
That, of course, is the argument that put it in place to begin with. But, no, you have equal vote strength then. People can choose where to live. They shouldn't have their vote devalued in a representative democracy just because they live in a populous state--and they shouldn't have their vote augmented just because they live in a rural area in Iowa.

Districts are based upon population. When population moves to California they get more districts and when Californians move to Texas, then California loses districts and Texas gains. This is why the continual Progressive-Democrat consternation over the census and gerrymandering.

This makes your point a fallacious point.
The only dilution occurs because of population growth and the limit on districts. Your Representatives in the House no longer wonder about individual voters, they have too many. They only pay attention to the money. This is one of the mistakes Hillary made. She spent too much time raising celebrity and corporate cash, because you know, money wins elections (ask JEB!) and decided that she didn't need to go woo the basketful of deplorables in rural and blue-collar America, which is why you are wailing about the Electoral College. Trump went out to those people and convinced them that he cared.
In short, y'alls problem was not the EC, but the coronation of the worst candidate that the Democrats had run in generations. Your problem is not with the Constitution, but your party.
 
And would not explain how the popular vote is not how the electoral college is better? Hey I agree mob rule is a bad idea but is the college any better?

Of course it is, without it, New York and Los Angeles would elect every President. Nobody else in American would matter.
 
As we saw in the last election, it rewarded the candidate who paid attention to the lesser states and punished the candidate only concerned with the coastal elite and large Democrat-controlled cities.
 
It's been outdated since before California made it obsolete. It's silly to keep it as is and continue to fail the American people.
 
Hey I agree mob rule is a bad idea but is the college any better?

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.
 
It's been outdated since before California made it obsolete. It's silly to keep it as is and continue to fail the American people.

How was it outdated before?

How did California make it obsolete??:D
 
I have found that those most enamored of mob rule are those so arrogant that they feel they will always be on the right side. But when California's "mob" voted to preserve traditional marriage, the aggrieved minority ran straight to the tyranny of the ultimate minority, the courts...

;) ;)


~~ ducks and runs ~~​
 
I have found that those most enamored of mob rule are those so arrogant that they feel they will always be on the right side. But when California's "mob" voted to preserve traditional marriage, the aggrieved minority ran straight to the tyranny of the ultimate minority, the courts...

;) ;)


~~ ducks and runs ~~​

No need to duck and run from an absolute truth that Democrats love to use the politically corrupted courts to advance agenda items that cannot be pursued through the democratic legislative process. ;)
 
No need to duck and run from an absolute truth that Democrats love to use the politically corrupted courts to advance agenda items that cannot be pursued through the democratic legislative process. ;)
Ooh, agenda items are being advanced by politically corrupted courts?

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