Democrats And Illegals

[Squire Robertsson]

How IIRC the electors meet in their state capitols to vote in person? And so far, there's been a lot of talking about Russian hacking but I haven't seen any hard evidence presented of it. Like RM requested where is your evidence of it besides Russian disinformatziya?

Also the Electoral college system is more susceptible to hacking as was done in the 2016 election by Russia in favor of Trump.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Under the Electoral college a vote in a small state is worth more than a vote in a large state. I think the principle should be one man/one vote. Also the Electoral ollege system is more susceptible to hacking as was done in the 2016 election by Russia in favor of Trump.

Your thinking ignores how the union came about in the first place. For example, the Senate deliberately gives every state the same say regardless of size. That is not your “one man, one vote” scenario and was never meant to be.

The system is designed to prevent the larger states from completely dominating the smaller. There would be no incentive to join a union where you have no real say. They had just fought against such a system, and won their freedom from it.

 

[Adonia]

Under the Electoral college a vote in a small state is worth more than a vote in a large state.

Under the Electoral College a vote in a small state is equal to the votes from large population states. - you are simply wrong with your statement from above. An abolition of the Electoral College would give the East and West coast states with large population centers the only say in the election, something that would not be fair to the rest of the people in our nation.

In countries with a direct popular vote elections, people are getting elected as Chief Executive with only 25% to 35% support of the population. Such an outcome does not reflect the "will of the people" as a whole in any way, so you end up with a President who is supported by only a fourth or a third of the people.

But as for us here in America, why do you hate our Constitution so much?

I think the principle should be one man/one vote.

It is that way right now, we are only allowed one vote apiece.

Also the Electoral ollege system is more susceptible to hacking as was done in the 2016 election by Russia in favor of Trump.

You continue to repeat the false mantra of the left and the Democrats. The Mueller report said there was nothing the Russians did that turned the election to Trump's favor. He won fair and square and it's time for you to accept that truth.

The only connivance with the Russians was done by Hillary and the DNC who paid for the Steele Dossier which attempted to portray President Trump in a bad light.

 

[Adonia]

If you did it that way, in our country, only large states like California and New York, due to population size would decide the election for the country and no one else gets -a say in the election. If our population were evenly distributed, you could do that, but that is not the case. One man/one vote would put the entire Midwest US at a disadvantage. Southern California alone has a larger population than the Midwest. Add New York state those two states would choose the president in every election.

This same thing is reflected at the local level. In states like New York, Illinois, California and a host of others, all a person has to do when running for Governor is to campaign in the larger cites - that's where all the votes are. You win the cities - you win the Governorship.

The only way to make it fair would be for states to copy the Federal system with each county having a certain number of electoral votes and the Governor is elected on that basis.

 

[FollowTheWay]

That's not how it works. You clearly do not understand how the Electoral College works. The number of electors is determined by the number of Representatives and Senators each state has. The # of Electors is equal to the number of Representatives in the House and Senate for that state. When people cast their vote, they are actually picking electors. Those electoral votes for the presidential candidate that gets the most votes is given to that candidate. The electors in the Electoral College then cast their votes for the candidate who obtained the most electoral votes during the election.

If you did it that way, in our country, only large states like California and New York, due to population size would decide the election for the country and no one else gets -a say in the election. If our population were evenly distributed, you could do that, but that is not the case. One man/one vote would put the entire Midwest US at a disadvantage. Southern California alone has a larger population than the Midwest. Add New York state those two states would choose the president in every election.


The Electoral College has nothing to do with Russia hacking. Russia could hack our elections no matter if we were using the Electoral College or not. That is a fallacious argument.

Just as I said, you favor making a vote in a small state worth more than a vote in a large state. Right? That favors your party but is not the fairest way to elect a president.

 

[Revmitchell]

Just as I said, you favor making a vote in a small state worth more than a vote in a large state. Right? That favors your party but is not the fairest way to elect a president.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Your thinking ignores how the union came about in the first place. For example, the Senate deliberately gives every state the same say regardless of size. That is not your “one man, one vote” scenario and was never meant to be.

The system is designed to prevent the larger states from completely dominating the smaller. There would be no incentive to join a union where you have no real say. They had just fought against such a system, and won their freedom from it.

The House is based on population. Your point?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Under the Electoral College a vote in a small state is equal to the votes from large population states. - you are simply wrong with your statement from above. An abolition of the Electoral College would give the East and West coast states with large population centers the only say in the election, something that would not be fair to the rest of the people in our nation.

In countries with a direct popular vote elections, people are getting elected as Chief Executive with only 25% to 35% support of the population. Such an outcome does not reflect the "will of the people" as a whole in any way, so you end up with a President who is supported by only a fourth or a third of the people.

But as for us here in America, why do you hate our Constitution so much?



It is that way right now, we are only allowed one vote apiece.



You continue to repeat the false mantra of the left and the Democrats. The Mueller report said there was nothing the Russians did that turned the election to Trump's favor. He won fair and square and it's time for you to accept that truth.

The only connivance with the Russians was done by Hillary and the DNC who paid for the Steele Dossier which attempted to portray President Trump in a bad light.

A vote in a small state is worth more under the electoral college than a vote in a large state. While California has one electoral vote per 712,000 people, Wyoming — the least populous state in the country — has one electoral vote per 195,000 people.

 

[Revmitchell]

A vote in a small state is worth more under the electoral college than a vote in a large state. While California has one electoral vote per 712,000 people, Wyoming — the least populous state in the country — has one electoral vote per 195,000 people.

Given the population difference between the states that evens it out not makes it more. Not sure why that needs explaining.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Given the population difference between the states that evens it out not makes it more. Not sure why that needs explaining.

???

 

[Revmitchell]

???

Exactly

 

[GoodTidings]

Just as I said, you favor making a vote in a small state worth more than a vote in a large state. Right? That favors your party but is not the fairest way to elect a president.

Just repeating the same misinformation doesn't make it true. The Electoral College does not make small states more powerful than large states. You say that because you don't understand how it works. It does not favor the Republican party. Democrat Presidents have been elected many times through the same Electoral College, so your argument doesn't really hold any water.

 

[Adonia]

Just repeating the same misinformation doesn't make it true. The Electoral College does not make small states more powerful than large states. You say that because you don't understand how it works. It does not favor the Republican party. Democrat Presidents have been elected many times through the same Electoral College, so your argument doesn't really hold any water.

Yes, let us look at all the Democrats elected under the Electoral College system since 1932.
1. FDR (4 terms)
2. Harry S. Truman (1 term from the death of FDR, 1 term elected)
3. JFK
4. LBJ (1 term)
5. Jimmy Carter (1 term)
6. Bill Clinton (2 terms)
6. Barack Obama (2 terms)

Suddenly, after the election of 2016 in which Orange Man Bad Donald Trump defeats Saint Hillary Clinton, the call goes out to abolish the Electoral College system. This is how the Democrats of today now operate, if they don't win one single election they want the rules changed, all the while quickly forgetting how it worked in their favor time and time again.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The House is based on population. Your point?

The point is obvious and applicable across the board. By fixating on just one aspect, you manage to miss the big picture and thus cannot help but get it wrong. As I said...

Your thinking ignores how the union came about in the first place. For example, the Senate deliberately gives every state the same say regardless of size. That is not your “one man, one vote” scenario and was never meant to be.

The system is designed to prevent the larger states from completely dominating the smaller. There would be no incentive to join a union where you have no real say. They had just fought against such a system, and won their freedom from it.

..

 

[GoodTidings]

Yes, let us look at all the Democrats elected under the Electoral College system since 1932.
1. FDR (4 terms)
2. Harry S. Truman (1 term from the death of FDR, 1 term elected)
3. JFK
4. LBJ (1 term)
5. Jimmy Carter (1 term)
6. Bill Clinton (2 terms)
6. Barack Obama (2 terms)

Suddenly, after the election of 2016 in which Orange Man Bad Donald Trump defeats Saint Hillary Clinton, the call goes out to abolish the Electoral College system. This is how the Democrats of today now operate, if they don't win one single election they want the rules changed, all the while quickly forgetting how it worked in their favor time and time again.

The current crop of Dems are cheaters. They have to rig the system because clear thinking, mature Americans don't want socialism and don't want to pay for illegal aliens to freeload off their tax dollars.

The Democrats don't have a policy that REAL Americans want, so they have to rig the system in order to get into power by any means and it doesn't matter if they have to lie, cheat, steal and it doesn't matter who they have to destroy, as long as they get in power.

The difference is that Democrats want to be in power, but Conservatives want to govern. The Democrat platform is all about what they can take away from you. They want to take your money, your privacy, your guns, your freedom, everything. They want power and control and they want to remake America into a Soviet-style country where your children are wards of the state and government owns pretty much everything.

The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Just repeating the same misinformation doesn't make it true. The Electoral College does not make small states more powerful than large states. You say that because you don't understand how it works. It does not favor the Republican party. Democrat Presidents have been elected many times through the same Electoral College, so your argument doesn't really hold any water.

I didn't say the EC makes small STATES ore powerful. I said it makes a person's VOTE in a small state more powerful than someone's vote in a large state. You just don't understand do you?

 

[FollowTheWay]

The point is obvious and applicable across the board. By fixating on just one aspect, you manage to miss the big picture and thus cannot help but get it wrong. As I said...

Your thinking ignores how the union came about in the first place. For example, the Senate deliberately gives every state the same say regardless of size. That is not your “one man, one vote” scenario and was never meant to be.

The system is designed to prevent the larger states from completely dominating the smaller. There would be no incentive to join a union where you have no real say. They had just fought against such a system, and won their freedom from it.

You only mentioned the Senate. I added the House. What's wrong with that?

 

[GoodTidings]

I didn't say the EC makes small STATES ore powerful. I said it makes a person's VOTE in a small state more powerful than someone's vote in a large state. You just don't understand do you?

I see what you're saying but again, why is that valid criticism of the Electoral College now, when people like you didn't have a problem with it when Obama, and Clinton and other Democrats were elected under the same system?

 

[FollowTheWay]

I see what you're saying but again, why is that valid criticism of the Electoral College now, when people like you didn't have a problem with it when Obama, and Clinton and other Democrats were elected under the same system?

I've had a problem with the EC for a long time?" Why do you think I haven't?

 

[GoodTidings]

I've had a problem with the EC for a long time?" Why do you think I haven't?

What I am saying is you Dems never made an issue of it until it Trump got elected. If you really had a problem with it, or not, I don't know. It's easy to say that now. But the fact is that you folks were okay with it when worked for you.