Getting rid of the Electoral College

[icanhelp1]

YDB95 writes: "First of all, Reagan was as racist as he was dumb, so you might want to find another poster boy for your cause on this one."

Liberals might want to think that. After all, Reagan kicked their asses with back-to-back landslide election wins, making childish name-calling certainly understandable. In 1980, Reagan defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter in a lopsided 489-49 electoral college blow-out, and then four year's later he smashed Carter's Vice President (Walter Mondale) with a 49-state lopsided drubbing, winning the electoral vote by an all-time record 525-to-13 margin!

"Secondly, there is literally no evidence whatsoever that photo-ID laws are necessary"

That's EXACTLY what people cheating at election time would want to say. And then they'd claim that it's somehow RACIST to expect minority voters to own photo-ID's. How can ANYBODY claim that minority voters can't get photo-ID's, when those same minority voters need photo-ID's to fly on a plane or purchase a case of beer?

No, they can easily get photo-ID's, but the Democratic Party BENEFITS when people cheat at the polls, which is why liberals do NOT want voter-photo-ID laws passed - EVER! Also, illegal immigrants would have a tougher time voting in states requiring a photo-ID, and Democrat candidates NEED illegal votes to win!

Every corrupt, fraudulent precinct in the United States is run by Democrats! In south Texas, where Lyndon Johnson stole his 1948 Democratic Party U.S. Senate run-off, it was corrupt Democrat counties that added thousands of votes to his total. In Cook County, Illinois (another Democratic Party stronghold), Chicago's mayor Daley used to splash water on ballot boxes so that he could report that "the ballots need to dry before they can be counted," so that he'd know exactly how many votes would be needed to achieve victory after the downstate tallies were reported. And then there's the infamous "butterfly" ballots in Palm Beach County, Florida (yes, it's another corrupt Democratic Party stronghold!)

I agree 100% Unfortunately the left only see's what they want to see. Republicans are on board with a split electoral vote rather than winner take all. It just seems to me that everytime a democrat loses we have a need to trash the electoral college.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kantarii View Post
Would it be better to get rid of the popular vote and just go with the electoral college? Just asking.

That's what we've already got.

Actually, it isn't. In individual states, the electors are chosen by popular vote. They are not required to vote as instructed, but mostly they do.

 

[YDB95]

I agree 100% Unfortunately the left only see's what they want to see. Republicans are on board with a split electoral vote rather than winner take all. It just seems to me that everytime a democrat loses we have a need to trash the electoral college.

Why shouldn't the Democrats complain when they've won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote twice in five elections? Seems like a perfectly good reason to call for a change that will reflect the will of the people more accurately.

 

[icanhelp1]

Why shouldn't the Democrats complain when they've won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote twice in five elections? Seems like a perfectly good reason to call for a change that will reflect the will of the people more accurately.

The complaint is well founded and has merit. We are not a democracy per/se but a hybrid republic. If you give all the power to the heavy populated areas of the country you run the risk of alienating a large portion of the lesser populations and reduce their ability to be represented. Our country would become a pure democracy where the majority would dictate policy over everyone and possible ignore the needs of the not so populated areas. The heartland which consist of millions of square miles of farmland are less populated but just as important as the higher populated areas. All areas of our country need equal representation. The founding fathers wrote the constitution with that in mind. The idea of two senators per state to give each state an equal voice is brilliant. It amazes me how our founders also conceded to the fact that the senate was not a totally fair assessment of fair government and created another addition called the house of representative, a co-equal partner with the senate which better represents the populous. Just for the sake of conversation the more populated ares are blue and have been blue since Christ wore sandals. To concede to a popular vote would most certainly expose us the blue agenda and if not kept in check, could ruin our country. I don't think people are assessing the unintended consequences of a purely populous vote. The blue or red agenda, whom ever is in power, could propagate their agenda indefinitely. It would affect the courts and the presidency. Everything would be either blue or red and eliminate checks and balances. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think positioning electors for each district does somewhat represent the populous of each state however to change the winner take all concept to a split vote has not been fully tested, Maine and Nebraska excluded, and may not deliver the intended consequences. I think to change the electoral college based on emotions could be hazardous to our very republic. To play the devils advocate, what if the heavy population centers were bright red, would the blue segment of our country be so quick to change the electoral college to a populous vote.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Why shouldn't the Democrats complain when they've won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote twice in five elections? Seems like a perfectly good reason to call for a change that will reflect the will of the people more accurately."

Yes, the Democratic Party can certainly TRY to change the U.S. Constitution, but they're probably not going to succeed. For one thing, EVERY single U.S. president, from George Washington to Donald Trump, has always won using the Electoral College to achieve victory.

A LOT of contenders have won the popular vote but FAILED to win enough electoral votes to move into the White House, beginning with Andrew Jackson in 1824. He lost that year to John Quincy Adams, but four years later defeated JQA soundly, without changing our electoral system.

In 1860, Abe Lincoln won a paltry 39.65% of the popular vote, but he took the presidency because he'd also won 59.4% of the electoral vote!

Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in 1876, but Rutherford Hayes won the presidency by narrowly winning the electoral vote.

Twelve years later, in 1888, President Grover Cleveland carried the popular vote, but lost the White House when Benjamin Harrison won 58.1% in the electoral college. No matter - four years later, Cleveland ran against Harrison AGAIN and this time he won BOTH the popular AND electoral vote.

In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush narrowly defeated Al in the electoral college with 50.4% of the electoral votes. Four years later, Bush was re-elected winning BOTH!

Which brings us to Donald Trump. For the Trump-haters to change the U.S. Constitution before 2020 would involve both the House & Senate overwhelmingly agreeing to award more political power to the west coast & the northeast, along with getting all of those small states (including Deleware, Rhode Island, Vermont, etc.) to cede all of their power & influence to those big cities on the coasts. Probably never going to happen!

 

[icanhelp1]

YDB95 writes: "Why shouldn't the Democrats complain when they've won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote twice in five elections? Seems like a perfectly good reason to call for a change that will reflect the will of the people more accurately."

Yes, the Democratic Party can certainly TRY to change the U.S. Constitution, but they're probably not going to succeed. For one thing, EVERY single U.S. president, from George Washington to Donald Trump, has always won using the Electoral College to achieve victory.

A LOT of contenders have won the popular vote but FAILED to win enough electoral votes to move into the White House, beginning with Andrew Jackson in 1824. He lost that year to John Quincy Adams, but four years later defeated JQA soundly, without changing our electoral system.

In 1860, Abe Lincoln won a paltry 39.65% of the popular vote, but he took the presidency because he'd also won 59.4% of the electoral vote!

Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in 1876, but Rutherford Hayes won the presidency by narrowly winning the electoral vote.

Twelve years later, in 1888, President Grover Cleveland carried the popular vote, but lost the White House when Benjamin Harrison won 58.1% in the electoral college. No matter - four years later, Cleveland ran against Harrison AGAIN and this time he won BOTH the popular AND electoral vote.

In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush narrowly defeated Al in the electoral college with 50.4% of the electoral votes. Four years later, Bush was re-elected winning BOTH!

Which brings us to Donald Trump. For the Trump-haters to change the U.S. Constitution before 2020 would involve both the House & Senate overwhelmingly agreeing to award more political power to the west coast & the northeast, along with getting all of those small states (including Deleware, Rhode Island, Vermont, etc.) to cede all of their power & influence to those big cities on the coasts. Probably never going to happen!

I agree, both parties have won using the electoral college and won in all variations and combinations. If I thought the democrats wanted change for the betterment of our nation, then I'd agree, let's bring on the argument. This is not what this is all about. This is about using heavy concentrations of populous to their advantage and sway the outcomes. Our forefathers were brilliant and it seems that as we age as a republic we become dumber

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Why shouldn't the Democrats complain when they've won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote twice in five elections? Seems like a perfectly good reason to call for a change that will reflect the will of the people more accurately."

Yes, the Democratic Party can certainly TRY to change the U.S. Constitution, but they're probably not going to succeed. For one thing, EVERY single U.S. president, from George Washington to Donald Trump, has always won using the Electoral College to achieve victory.

First of all, you didn't answer my question in any way. Secondly, that's the second time you've made that claim about "EVERY single U.S. president," and not only are you wrong, but in your next paragraph you refer directly to the election that makes you wrong!

A LOT of contenders have won the popular vote but FAILED to win enough electoral votes to move into the White House, beginning with Andrew Jackson in 1824. He lost that year to John Quincy Adams, but four years later defeated JQA soundly, without changing our electoral system.

Seriously, read a history book already. JQA did not win in the electoral college. No one got a majority of the electoral vote, with the result that the election went to the House of Representatives (which, incidentally, is how the founding fathers expected most elections to be settled - as it turned out, that was only the second, and to date the last, time it happened). Due to some shady dealings, JQA got elected even though Jackson got more votes, but he did NOT win through the electoral college.

And the total number of times that the popular vote winner lost the electoral vote is five, out of over 56 elections. (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016). That's an interesting definition of "a lot" you have there.

In 1860, Abe Lincoln won a paltry 39.65% of the popular vote, but he took the presidency because he'd also won 59.4% of the electoral vote!

True but irrelevant. Lincoln won the popular vote by a wide margin.

Which brings us to Donald Trump. For the Trump-haters to change the U.S. Constitution before 2020 would involve both the House & Senate overwhelmingly agreeing to award more political power to the west coast & the northeast, along with getting all of those small states (including Deleware, Rhode Island, Vermont, etc.) to cede all of their power & influence to those big cities on the coasts. Probably never going to happen!

No one is seriously arguing that there's any chance of abolishing the electoral college before 2020. That's not the point at all. Of course, Twitler also won't be running against the most uniquely reviled Democrat in the country this time either

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "First of all, you didn't answer my question in any way. Secondly, that's the second time you've made that claim about "EVERY single U.S. president," and not only are you wrong, but in your next paragraph you refer directly to the election that makes you wrong!"

My point is that winning the popular vote does NOT make you the president, whereas winning the Electoral Vote DOES make you president! As for the election going to the House of Representatives when no candidate wins a majority in the electoral college, yes, that's happened only twice, with JQA and also with Thomas Jefferson (who defeated JQA's dad in 1800), who tied in the Electoral College with his running-mate, Aaron Burr, because all of the glitches hadn't been worked out yet.

"Due to some shady dealings, JQA got elected even though Jackson got more votes, but he did NOT win through the electoral college."

No shady dealings - the U.S. Constitution worked as it was supposed to, with Jackson's hated rival Henry Clay supporting Adams instead of Jackson in the House of Representatives (where Clay was the Speaker). Clay had finished fourth in the presidential balloting in 1824, and was permitted to swing his support the the candidate of his choice, which was JQA.

"And the total number of times that the popular vote winner lost the electoral vote is five, out of over 56 elections. (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016). That's an interesting definition of "a lot" you have there."

Yes, I'd say that five elections is a lot. The important thing is, our U.S. Constitution works like it's supposed to.

"True but irrelevant. Lincoln won the popular vote by a wide margin. "

Lincoln won 1,855,993 popular votes in 1860, with Lincoln's opponents winning a combined 2,825,274 votes. But the Electoral College gave Honest Abe 180 votes compared with only 123 for his three opponents (Stephen Douglas, John Breckenridge, & John Bell). The system worked.

"No one is seriously arguing that there's any chance of abolishing the electoral college before 2020. That's not the point at all."

On that point we can agree.

 

[Boxlicker101]

YDB95 writes: "Why shouldn't the Democrats complain when they've won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote twice in five elections? Seems like a perfectly good reason to call for a change that will reflect the will of the people more accurately."

Yes, the Democratic Party can certainly TRY to change the U.S. Constitution, but they're probably not going to succeed. For one thing, EVERY single U.S. president, from George Washington to Donald Trump, has always won using the Electoral College to achieve victory.

A LOT of contenders have won the popular vote but FAILED to win enough electoral votes to move into the White House, beginning with Andrew Jackson in 1824. He lost that year to John Quincy Adams, but four years later defeated JQA soundly, without changing our electoral system.

In 1860, Abe Lincoln won a paltry 39.65% of the popular vote, but he took the presidency because he'd also won 59.4% of the electoral vote!

Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in 1876, but Rutherford Hayes won the presidency by narrowly winning the electoral vote.

Twelve years later, in 1888, President Grover Cleveland carried the popular vote, but lost the White House when Benjamin Harrison won 58.1% in the electoral college. No matter - four years later, Cleveland ran against Harrison AGAIN and this time he won BOTH the popular AND electoral vote.

In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush narrowly defeated Al in the electoral college with 50.4% of the electoral votes. Four years later, Bush was re-elected winning BOTH!

Which brings us to Donald Trump. For the Trump-haters to change the U.S. Constitution before 2020 would involve both the House & Senate overwhelmingly agreeing to award more political power to the west coast & the northeast, along with getting all of those small states (including Deleware, Rhode Island, Vermont, etc.) to cede all of their power & influence to those big cities on the coasts. Probably never going to happen!

The Dems have no chance of amending the Constitution in this way, and they must know that. Even in the highly unlikely event they could win in Congress, they would never get 38 states to ratify such a change. Enough states would see themselves as losing clout and would vote against the amendment. Even if some Dem-controlled legislatures put party ahead of their constituents, there would be enough who would not do so, or where the GOP is in control.

ETA BTW, Lincoln won a plurality, but not a majority of the pop. vote in 1860.

 

[My I]

The Dems lost the last Presidential election because of a system that has been in place for over 200 years and the Dems never complained about it once. NOT ONCE. But you lost the last one so now you figure if you can't win playing by the rules (aka the Constitution of the United States of America) then you're gonna change the rules so you CAN win.

And since we don't have enough voters of legal age dumb enough to fall for our bullshit let's lower the voting age to 16 saying they can be responsible voters, while raising the legal age of everything else to 21 because people younger than that aren't responsible enough. And let's give voting right to people who DON'T EVEN FUCKING BELONG IN THIS COUNTRY because they vote for us if we do.

And you lost control of the Supreme Court so you want to abolish the Supreme Court. You lost control of the Senate, so you want to abolish that too. and while you're at it, repeal the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eadefd0dfcfe6c2f1cd909e99dff6b22b756ada0867ff7400fab94ca954d7ec5.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

You still think that immigrants vote in our elections. Can you name any non-citizen who tried to influence an election?

Well, I can. Donald John Trump.

https://www.politico.eu/article/how...n-golf-us-presidential-election-2016-america/

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Over 10,000,000 Americans died between 2012 and 2016."

Yes, phrodeau, people die, but for every person who dies two new people are born or move here - the population of the United States is NOT shrinking, as you seem to be implying. Our nation is GROWING by approximately 20,000,000 ever ten years!

308,745,538 - the population of the United States in 2010
328,335,000 - the CURRENT population of the United States (in 2019)
+19,589,462 - U.S. population INCREASE so far this decade

But yes, phrodeau - the number of people voting Democrat in U.S. presidential elections has steadily DECREASED these past two elections! Hillary received about 65-thousand FEWER votes in 2016 than President Obama received in 2012, and President Obama in 2012 received just over 3-&-a-half-million FEWER popular votes than did Senator Obama in 2008! WHAT'S happening to the Democratic Party?

 

[phrodeau]

Sure, if you choose to ignore the elections of 2010, 2014 and 2018. I think you’ll see the number of votes going up as well as down.

 

[My I]

You still think that immigrants vote in our elections. Can you name any non-citizen who tried to influence an election?

Well, I can. Donald John Trump.

https://www.politico.eu/article/how...n-golf-us-presidential-election-2016-america/

Dude. It's been investigated to death for two years.

YOU FUCKING LOST!!!! DEAL WITH IT.

Or just go on being another fucking LOSER in denial.

 

[phrodeau]

Either you know non-citizens who illegally voted, or you don’t. Which is it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

You still think that immigrants vote in our elections. Can you name any non-citizen who tried to influence an election?

Well, I can. Donald John Trump.

https://www.politico.eu/article/how...n-golf-us-presidential-election-2016-america/

Christopher Steele.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Either you know non-citizens who illegally voted, or you don’t. Which is it?"

The state of California (which is controlled by the Democratic Party) has given people illegally in this country state drivers' licenses, and then that state approved laws allowing anybody with a valid drivers' license to cast votes in their state! That same Democratic Party simultaneously argues that voter-photo-ID laws disenfranchise minority voters, implying that black & minority voters here in the U.S. are sadly too simple-minded to acquire valid photo-ID's!

With the votes of illegals in states like California, Democratic Party candidates like Hillary Clinton were able to increase their total by nearly 900,000 votes in that one state, while LOSING votes everywhere else! Again, Mrs. Clinton finished with 64,855 FEWER popular votes nationwide in 2016 than Barack Obama, but simultaneously received 899,507 MORE votes than Barack in California!

WHERE did all of those votes for Hillary come from in that one state? I mean, nationwide she can't even match what Obama got four years earlier, but in that one state she kicks his ass?

 

[YDB95]

The complaint is well founded and has merit. We are not a democracy per/se but a hybrid republic. If you give all the power to the heavy populated areas of the country you run the risk of alienating a large portion of the lesser populations and reduce their ability to be represented. Our country would become a pure democracy where the majority would dictate policy over everyone and possible ignore the needs of the not so populated areas. The heartland which consist of millions of square miles of farmland are less populated but just as important as the higher populated areas. All areas of our country need equal representation. The founding fathers wrote the constitution with that in mind.

Erm, no. They wrote the Constitution with an eye towards preserving slavery. And what you describe there about reducing the ability to be represented? That already is happening with the electoral college. You do make some good points about ensuring all sides are represented, but there is NO excuse for the way the electoral college gives outsized clout to small, rural states.

My point is that winning the popular vote does NOT make you the president, whereas winning the Electoral Vote DOES make you president!

No one is disputing that. The question is not whether or not it is that way, but rather whether or not it should be that way.

"Due to some shady dealings, JQA got elected even though Jackson got more votes, but he did NOT win through the electoral college."

No shady dealings - the U.S. Constitution worked as it was supposed to, with Jackson's hated rival Henry Clay supporting Adams instead of Jackson in the House of Representatives (where Clay was the Speaker). Clay had finished fourth in the presidential balloting in 1824, and was permitted to swing his support the the candidate of his choice, which was JQA.

Actually, once Adams was elected, he appointed Clay his secretary of state - a move that, although it passed constitutional muster, was undeniably inappropriate.

The Dems have no chance of amending the Constitution in this way, and they must know that. Even in the highly unlikely event they could win in Congress, they would never get 38 states to ratify such a change. Enough states would see themselves as losing clout and would vote against the amendment. Even if some Dem-controlled legislatures put party ahead of their constituents, there would be enough who would not do so, or where the GOP is in control.

Once upon a time, you could have made essentially the same argument about abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, Social Security...you get the idea. In every generation, conservatives try to hold back the hands of time, but sooner or later we march forward.

ETA BTW, Lincoln won a plurality, but not a majority of the pop. vote in 1860.

No one said otherwise.

 

[phrodeau]

phrodeau writes: "Either you know non-citizens who illegally voted, or you don’t. Which is it?"

The state of California (which is controlled by the Democratic Party) has given people illegally in this country state drivers' licenses, and then that state approved laws allowing anybody with a valid drivers' license to cast votes in their state! That same Democratic Party simultaneously argues that voter-photo-ID laws disenfranchise minority voters, implying that black & minority voters here in the U.S. are sadly too simple-minded to acquire valid photo-ID's!

With the votes of illegals in states like California, Democratic Party candidates like Hillary Clinton were able to increase their total by nearly 900,000 votes in that one state, while LOSING votes everywhere else! Again, Mrs. Clinton finished with 64,855 FEWER popular votes nationwide in 2016 than Barack Obama, but simultaneously received 899,507 MORE votes than Barack in California!

WHERE did all of those votes for Hillary come from in that one state? I mean, nationwide she can't even match what Obama got four years earlier, but in that one state she kicks his ass?

Let’s see the list. Names and addresses of non-citizens who cast votes.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Erm, no. They wrote the Constitution with an eye towards preserving slavery."

That's complete NONSENSE! The U.S. Constitution is the very document that the Republican-dominated U.S. government of the mid-1860's used to PERMANENTLY ABOLISH slavery, after the U.S. Supreme Court (which ruled abortion legal in 1973) had ruled slavery legal in 1857. The U.S. Constitution is what made the abolishment of slavery in this country PERMANENT!

Now Islamic Sharia Law makes it CLEAR that the Holy Prophet Muhammed not only condoned slavery, but according the the Holy Koran it remains perfectly acceptable (and is even encouraged) to make slaves of the infidels even today, and we currently have TWO Islamic members sitting in our U.S. House of Representatives (both Democrats) who have NEVER refuted any of Muhammed's teachings! Of course, if either one ever dared to do so they'd probably be killed by other Muslims living here in the U.S. (who are ALSO Democrats!) Honor-killings is a part of their culture!

"Actually, once Adams was elected, he appointed Clay his secretary of state - a move that, although it passed constitutional muster, was undeniably inappropriate."

No, Andrew Jackson didn't like that appointment one bit - he called it a "corrupt bargain" - but nobody was actually claiming that Henry Clay was unqualified to be Secretary of State. The guy was one of America's great statesmen of that era, along with John C. Calhoun & Daniel Webster. Clay would later run for president against Jackson in 1832 (and lose badly), and then against James K. Polk (and lose that one, as well!)

"In every generation, conservatives try to hold back the hands of time, but sooner or later we march forward."

Yes, it's the pro-atheist Democratic Party that's marching us forward by electing MUSLIM representatives to congress, with that religion's unique methods of dealing with women's rights and the treatment of gay men. How many Christian churches exist today in Saudi Arabia? NONE? That's a political-progressive's DREAM!

Which probably also explains why Barack Obama felt it necessary to sign that presidential executive order allowing transgendered guys into women's restrooms, which had been a serious problem in this country before he made his courageous decision that would become a part of his historic legacy to move our nation forward against the hands of time!

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Let’s see the list. Names and addresses of non-citizens who cast votes."

Yeah, like the Democratic Party of California is ever going to allow for the release of the names of 900,000+ Mexican nationals participating in America's elections! WHY would they want to do that? As Hillary's popular vote totals clearly show, there were FEWER people voting Democrat nationwide in 2016 than there were in 2012 - EXCEPT in those places where illegals were allowed to cast ballots!

Barack Obama was SO POPULAR when he ran for re-election in 2012 that he received 3,580,921 FEWER votes nationwide than he'd won in 2008! I'm telling you, the Democratic Party is steadily SHRINKING, which is why Dems desperately NEED the votes of illegals!

Did Bush-43 received fewer votes in 2004 than he'd gotten in 2000? NO, he received 11,577,160 MORE votes the second time around! Ditto for Ronald Reagan, who got 10,552,242 MORE votes in 1984 than he'd received in 1980.

 

[phrodeau]

You seem scared, practically terrified, that the citizens of the US might be fairly represented in government.

 

[phrodeau]

phrodeau writes: "Let’s see the list. Names and addresses of non-citizens who cast votes."

Yeah, like the Democratic Party of California is ever going to allow for the release of the names of 900,000+ Mexican nationals participating in America's elections! WHY would they want to do that? As Hillary's popular vote totals clearly show, there were FEWER people voting Democrat nationwide in 2016 than there were in 2012 - EXCEPT in those places where illegals were allowed to cast ballots!

Barack Obama was SO POPULAR when he ran for re-election in 2012 that he received 3,580,921 FEWER votes nationwide than he'd won in 2008! I'm telling you, the Democratic Party is steadily SHRINKING, which is why Dems desperately NEED the votes of illegals!

Did Bush-43 received fewer votes in 2004 than he'd gotten in 2000? NO, he received 11,577,160 MORE votes the second time around! Ditto for Ronald Reagan, who got 10,552,242 MORE votes in 1984 than he'd received in 1980.

You know so much about elections, but you choose to ignore the way they are managed. Both parties as well as independents are closely involved to make sure elections are fair. Seems ridiculous to have to point it out to you.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "You seem scared, practically terrified, that the citizens of the US might be fairly represented in government."

Look, phrodeau - you're a Democrat! Voter-fraud greatly BENEFITS your party! I get that! You WANT people from Mexico sneaking across our border and then casting votes for Democratic Party candidates in exchange for then receiving generous tax-payer-funded freebies!

That's why you ALSO vehemently OPPOSE voter photo-ID laws, which might discourage people who aren't citizens from participating in our nation's electoral process! And that ALSO explains why you dislike the Electoral College, as millions of illegals casting votes in California can't put somebody like Hillary Clinton in the White House! You'd need millions of illegals casting votes in all fifty states to accomplish that!

"Both parties as well as independents are closely involved to make sure elections are fair. Seems ridiculous to have to point it out to you."

Not the Democratic Party, phrodeau. Fair elections do NOT benefit that party's candidates. They have been steadily LOSING voters now in two straight presidential elections! Getting illegals to the polls is the ONLY way for that party to gain strength in future elections!

 

[phrodeau]

You’ve had every opportunity to name some of those illegal voters, yet you strangely lack any clear evidence to support your claims.