Hillary Clinton says the Electoral College 'needs to be eliminated'

As I keep saying, I'm torn on it - but it's pretty obvious that conservatives are terrified of changing the system.

For that matter, conservatives are terrified of more people actually voting. From motor voter all the way through the current "voter integrity commission" or whatever it is, they have consistently, without fail, opposed and tried to keep down any measure that would enable more people to vote.

So, I get it. Without the electoral, future elections would look pretty bleak for the righties.
 
Superfreak said:
No, we have not. But I certainly understand your desire not to be proven wrong again. It is simple math. So don't question something so simple if you don't wish to discuss it.
Click to expand...
Yes, we have, but unfortunately because of the corruption of the database I just cant prove it.
 
noise said:
yes. it's counter-intuitive, but the EC actually forces candidates to campaign more in less populated areas.
That is a good thing
Click to expand...

I dunno if it actually is good & if it is to some degree who is it good for?

Example Romney, he had to kowtow to heavily subsidized farmers in Iowa & such, & then had to itcha-sketch & run away from all that to kowtow to big corps & donors etc...
 
Superfreak said:
key words there... MORE THAN HALF
Click to expand...
Nope, it can also be, as in this case, the greater number, sorry didn't mean to change my post to remove part of the definition, I was just trying to clean it up.

A majority doesn't always mean more than half
 
Thing1 said:
It's not really an "analysis." What you're essentially saying is that people in CA matter less. Their votes shouldn't count as full votes.
Click to expand...

that is in fact the intended result of watering down the straight popular vote with two electoral votes from each state regardless of population.......
 
Covfefe said:
Nope, it can also be, as in this case, the greater number, sorry didn't mean to change my post to remove part of the definition, I was just trying to clean it up.

A majority doesn't always mean more than half
Click to expand...

it does in mathematics and politics......only in rhetoric does it mean less than 51%......
 
Thing1 said:
[1]As I keep saying, I'm torn on it - but it's pretty obvious that conservatives are terrified of changing the system.

[2]For that matter, conservatives are terrified of more people actually voting. From motor voter all the way through the current "voter integrity commission" or whatever it is, they have consistently, without fail, opposed and tried to keep down any measure that would enable more people to vote.

[3]So, I get it. Without the electoral, future elections would look pretty bleak for the righties.
Click to expand...
1. This is blatantly untrue. All the conservative I know want to change the system by eliminating huge swaths of the federal government that are inconsistent with its constitutional authority.
2. Again untrue. You're confusing wanting integrity in the process for not wanting the process to be easily accessible.
3. This is true, but what you advocate is troubling as well for residents of 48 states that aren't New York and California.
 
Thing1 said:
As I keep saying, I'm torn on it - but it's pretty obvious that conservatives are terrified of changing the system.

For that matter, conservatives are terrified of more people actually voting. From motor voter all the way through the current "voter integrity commission" or whatever it is, they have consistently, without fail, opposed and tried to keep down any measure that would enable more people to vote.

So, I get it. Without the electoral, future elections would look pretty bleak for the righties.
Click to expand...

True, they are & for good reason-most Americans don't support their agenda PERIOD..
 
Thing1 said:
As I keep saying, I'm torn on it - but it's pretty obvious that conservatives are terrified of changing the system.

For that matter, conservatives are terrified of more people actually voting. From motor voter all the way through the current "voter integrity commission" or whatever it is, they have consistently, without fail, opposed and tried to keep down any measure that would enable more people to vote.

So, I get it. Without the electoral, future elections would look pretty bleak for the righties.
Click to expand...

Allow me to translate this ^^^^^

whaaaaaa whaaaaa, Hillary SHOULD BE PRESIDENT whaaaaaaaaa
 
Covfefe said:
Nope, it can also be, as in this case, the greater number, sorry didn't mean to change my post to remove part of the definition, I was just trying to clean it up.

A majority doesn't always mean more than half
Click to expand...

when it comes to the discussion of 'will of the people' it most certainly means more than half. when is the last time you heard someone reference data that is under 50% as the majority? There is a reason the word 'plurality' exists.
 
Superfreak said:
when it comes to the discussion of 'will of the people' it most certainly means more than half. when is the last time you heard someone reference data that is under 50% as the majority? There is a reason the word 'plurality' exists.
Click to expand...
Sorry, don't agree with you, candidate win elections all the time without 50% of the vote and they say, the majority voted for them, meaning the greater number.
 
Thing1 said:
As I keep saying, I'm torn on it - but it's pretty obvious that conservatives are terrified of changing the system.

For that matter, conservatives are terrified of more people actually voting. From motor voter all the way through the current "voter integrity commission" or whatever it is, they have consistently, without fail, opposed and tried to keep down any measure that would enable more people to vote.

So, I get it. Without the electoral, future elections would look pretty bleak for the righties.
Click to expand...

LMAO, you mean conservatives are intelligent enough to understand the merits of the electoral college. Whereas Dems only cry about the EC when they lose the election. Your party knew it could happen as you whined about it after the 2000 elections. Yet they did nothing to change it when they controlled the WH and both houses of Congress. Why is that do you think?
 
Covfefe said:
Sorry, don't agree with you, candidate win elections all the time without 50% of the vote and they say, the majority voted for them, meaning the greater number.
Click to expand...

LMAO... you keep living in your fantasy land. people using terms incorrectly doesn't mean it alters the words meaning.
 
Forgive the generalization but all republicans are old and have curly blue hair, watch Fox News all day with white knuckles, can't parallel park, drive 15 mph under the speed limit, nod off in meetings, eat dinner at 300 pm, peer out at people through Venetian blinds, and they all vote. Every one of them.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... you keep living in your fantasy land. people using terms incorrectly doesn't mean it alters the words meaning.
Click to expand...
It isn't my fantasyland SF it is how it operates, sorry. Majority doesnt always mean 50% or greater it can mean the largest number.
 
Micawber said:
Forgive the generalization but all republicans are old and have curly blue hair, watch Fox News all day with white knuckles, can't parallel park, drive 15 mph under the speed limit, nod off in meetings, eat dinner at 300 pm, peer out at people through Venetian blinds, and they all vote. Every one of them.
Click to expand...

Wow. And all Democrats have greasy dirty hair, watch PMSNBC while drooling, can't park between the lines, drive in the left lane at the speed limit, sit in the front row with a sign and chant at meetings, eat breakfast at noon, and have the back or their Prius plastered with political bumper stickers.
 
Covfefe said:
It isn't my fantasyland SF it is how it operates, sorry. Majority doesnt always mean 50% or greater it can mean the largest number.
Click to expand...

lmao... keep living in your fantasyland. Learn the fucking difference between plurality and majority. It might help you avoid being so foolish in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top