The fun part is someone thinking that having 2.4 million illegal aliens in a single state is perfectly acceptable.
The fun part is someone thinking that having 2.4 million illegal aliens in a single state is perfectly acceptable.Well let's see if that huge portion of illegals could actually change Biteks points.
So only someone clueless would think that illegal immigrants would change the point Bitek was making.
No that isn't what I said. The GOP has been dying for 8 years and they keep winning. That irrelevant popular vote will surely comfort Hillary when she watched Trump get sworn in January.The GOP was already not supposed to be able to win the popular vote? And you think that has nothing to do with a shitty party platform? If they changed their message maybe they'd fair better in the popular vote department.
Trump got the votes needed, Hillary lost. Losers telling winners they need to change is hilarious./GOP,er "wahhh I don't want a system that is fair cause we'll never win..wahhh"
Or they could adopt a party message/platform that people actually want to get the votes needed. But that would be a silly thing to do to win....
No that isn't what I said. The GOP has been dying for 8 years and they keep winning. That irrelevant popular vote will surely comfort Hillary when she watched Trump get sworn in January.
The first amendment is a remnant of the slavery era, should that go the way of the dinosaur?The electoral college is a remnant from the slavery era. It needs to go the way of the dinosaur.
The electoral college is a remnant from the slavery era. It needs to go the way of the dinosaur.
Is there any evidence to support that this hypothesis is more than the delusions of a broken mind?The fun part is someone thinking that having 2.4 million illegal aliens in a single state is perfectly acceptable.
Difference being the electoral college exists because of slavery. You can't say the same about the First Amendment... unless you're going to just lie more.The first amendment is a remnant of the slavery era, should that go the way of the dinosaur?
I'll take your goal post moving as an admission of defeat on your part.The fun part is someone thinking that having 2.4 million illegal aliens in a single state is perfectly acceptable.
The electoral college is a remnant from the slavery era. It needs to go the way of the dinosaur.
So, the person who wins would have to have actually received the most votes?
What a radical concept.
Probably won't go over well with the 'minority rules, majority rights..sorta' republicans. I'm sure they'd prefer our system to stay in a form that spares them hurt feelings when they look at a map.
Difference being the electoral college exists because of slavery. You can't say the same about the First Amendment... unless you're going to just lie more.
Intellectual dishonesty: the hallmark of buckshatting.
Please try and keep up with what this topic is about. You are making yourself look braindeadTrump got the votes needed, Hillary lost. Losers telling winners they need to change is hilarious.
The electoral college came to be as a way to bypass states gaining power over other states based on their own individual laws and governance. Regardless of state laws and enforcement propelling the voting population of a state to an insurmountable amount in a rigged popular vote system, the electoral college bypasses this conundrum. Rather than states gaining unfair and undue advantage due to the passing of laws and regulations solely effecting and increasing the voting population of that state (or coalition of states), or forcing other states to change their voting laws or lax their enforcement of voter laws in order to remain on equal-footing with states ramping up their eligible voting population using means entirely outside the control of all other states, the electoral college instead renders the states on more-equal footing than a popular voting system. Instead, you would rather have everyone playing the same contest, but each making up their own eligibility rules. Most assuredly, that would not end well for anyone.
Intellectual stupidity: the hallmark of jackshatting, kageshatting, and indushatting
Population of Wyoming: 584,000. EC votes: 3
195,000 residents/EC
GSP: $40.2B (0.2% of US GDP)
Population of California: 38,800,000 EC votes: 55
705,000 residents/EC
GSP: $2,448B, (14% of us GDP)
Residents of Wyoming votes count 3.6x what a Californian's count for, meanwhile California's GSP/resident is over 60x what a Wyomingite contributes to the country.
How is this any sane way to run a democracy or an economy?
This is how you get issues like coal mining, destroying clean energy policy and kicking out minorities on the winning ticket.
That is not why the electoral college came to be, it came to be in large part to provide institutional protection for slavery. If they had desired to prevent states from gaining federal power by changing voting standards they would have just implemented standards for voting for federal offices. Easy.
Interestingly enough one of the other reasons mentioned was to prevent the election of an unqualified candidate who was otherwise a skilled demagogue. So much for that, haha.
This isn't the country of California. You would create the same problem you described above if you changed it to the popular vote. California votes would be so overwhelming that Wyoming's representation would end up being so insignificant they might as well not vote. Proportional EC would solve many problems but the EC is definitely needed to keep a state such as California from completely controlling the country. They are well represented with 55 electoral votes which is 1/5 of what is need to win the presidency. Stop being greedy.
This isn't the country of California. You would create the same problem you described above if you changed it to the popular vote. California votes would be so overwhelming that Wyoming's representation would end up being so insignificant they might as well not vote. Proportional EC would solve many problems but the EC is definitely needed to keep a state such as California from completely controlling the country. They are well represented with 55 electoral votes which is 1/5 of what is need to win the presidency. Stop being greedy.
I am confused. Did you mean that not permitting state laws in slave states from resulting in an advantage to non-slave states is a sign of the electoral college's institutional protection of slavery? Or did you mean that the institutional protection of slavery part is not about how the EC prevents the electoral process itself from forcing states to modify their laws in order to have a comparative or advantageous representative voting population?
Easy, you say. So, additionally, how would you implement your voting standards for voting for federal offices in such a time?
I think each candidate were an "unqualified candidate who was otherwise a skilled demagogue." Fortunately, the EC provides the country the ability to truly to select the best option from a pool of candidates in such an instance.
This isn't the country of California. You would create the same problem you described above if you changed it to the popular vote. California votes would be so overwhelming that Wyoming's representation would end up being so insignificant they might as well not vote. Proportional EC would solve many problems but the EC is definitely needed to keep a state such as California from completely controlling the country. They are well represented with 55 electoral votes which is 1/5 of what is need to win the presidency. Stop being greedy.
President-Elect Trump got the votes needed.Please try and keep up with what this topic is about. You are making yourself look braindead
That's not the topic of conversation. FailPresident-Elect Trump got the votes needed.
Electors are based 100% on representation in congress, the 3/5th compromise took power away from slave states that they wanted. The "best" thing would have been to abolish slavery at the founding but that wasn't possible. The EC had nothing to do with slavery.The electoral college granted extra electors to rural (i.e.: slaveowning) states. This was done to ensure that the other states would not outlaw slavery, which in retrospect was a pretty bad idea.
Hillary failed to win. Trump got the votes needed.That's not the topic of conversation. Fail
History explained to those that don't understand or know it.Electors are based 100% on representation in congress, the 3/5th compromise took power away from slave states that they wanted. The "best" thing would have been to abolish slavery at the founding but that wasn't possible. The EC had nothing to do with slavery.