the last two GOP presidents lost the popular vote, stole office

the framers never intended the Constitution to be a dead document, if they had, they wouldn't have included an Amendmemt procedure

So try to amend it.

the US in 1790 was an agricultural nation of sixteen states, only two with a population barely crossing 100.000, the current EC reflects that now antiquated reality, it is based upon geography and not people, and doesn't account for the huge disparity between high and low populated States

On the other hand, supporters of the Electoral College see it as an integral part of our federal union, and a necessary way to give the states, as well as the people, a role in choosing the leadership of the government. Now, as in 1787, it’s seen as a critical way of preventing large urban centers from dominating the political process at the expense of rural areas. In any case, eliminating the Electoral College would not be an easy process. Congress, or a national constitutional convention, would have to propose an amendment, which would then have to be ratified by either three-quarters of state legislatures (currently 38) or by state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.

Those who argue in favor of the current system can point to the fact that in more than 200 years, the electoral and popular votes have split just five times, and faithless electors have never changed the result of an election. Given that statistic, perhaps many would agree with Alexander Hamilton, who in No. 68 of the Federalist Papers wrote of the new Electoral College system that “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”



https://www.history.com/news/the-history-of-the-electoral-college-debate
 
There is zero chance that the framers of the Constitution willfully intended to design a system where one party would routinely lose the popular vote and still be given a stranglehold on the federal government, and the national government routinely represented the will of the minority of eligible voters. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

They designed a Federated Republic, NOT a Democracy NOR an Oligarchy. Read the U.S. Constitution...

They didn't design Senators to be elected by popular vote either (Senators were supposed to be elected by the State). The Founders only designed the House to be elected by popular vote. Having the three positions elected in three different ways was a way for different interests to each get their representation in federal government. Having all three elected by popular vote completely destroys that concept, and attempts to make America more into a Democracy (none ever survive), which is a gateway into transforming America into an Oligarchy.
 
Maybe you can cite the text that says DEMOCRATS called the Electoral College an "18th century embarrassment" prior to November 9th, 2016.

Too funny, now he wants the actual wording to prove Democrats opposed the electoral college prior to 2016, next he'll demand the video

How about this, "electorial college is a disaster for a democracy a total shame and travesty" - Donald Trump, 11/6/12. But he topped that later when he called it "disgrace and phony," that was when he was against it before he was for it
 
Too funny, now he wants the actual wording to prove Democrats opposed the electoral college prior to 2016, next he'll demand the video

How about this, "electorial college is a disaster for a democracy a total shame and travesty" - Donald Trump, 11/6/12. But he topped that later when he called it "disgrace and phony," that was when he was against it before he was for it

You know a whiny, low IQ, Trump hating leftist has lost their argument when they start quoting Trump. :laugh:

giphy.gif
 
Too funny, now he wants the actual wording to prove Democrats opposed the electoral college prior to 2016, next he'll demand the video

How about this, "electorial college is a disaster for a democracy a total shame and travesty" - Donald Trump, 11/6/12. But he topped that later when he called it "disgrace and phony," that was when he was against it before he was for it

Why are so many of you lefties doing what Hillary said is a threat to our democracy by questioning election results? Wait, did she question election results?
 
Will you understand if he can't explain?

hahaha yeah, he likely ain't going to explain anything... These types can't seem to form their own arguments, so they chant slogans and buzzwords instead.

I've historically compared these types to being robots. They get programmed (and are ultimately controlled) by the leftists within the federal government, and the leftist media soundbites are their software updates.
 
They designed a Federated Republic, NOT a Democracy NOR an Oligarchy. Read the U.S. Constitution...

They didn't design Senators to be elected by popular vote either (Senators were supposed to be elected by the State). The Founders only designed the House to be elected by popular vote. Having the three positions elected in three different ways was a way for different interests to each get their representation in federal government. Having all three elected by popular vote completely destroys that concept, and attempts to make America more into a Democracy (none ever survive), which is a gateway into transforming America into an Oligarchy.

This gets more interesting every time I see it, it has gone from a straight Republic, to Constitutional Republic, and now Federated Republic.

It is a Democratc Republic, we elect our leaders democratically to serve as out representatives in a Republican form of Government. Federated implies the structure of the Governmemt, not how we arrived at that framework.

And Federalism implies the relationship between the individual States and Federal Gov't, again the framework, but not how we elect our leaders
 
This gets more interesting every time I see it, it has gone from a straight Republic, to Constitutional Republic, and now Federated Republic.

Citation required.

It is a Democratc Republic, we elect our leaders democratically to serve as out representatives in a Republican form of Government. Federated implies the structure of the Governmemt, not how we arrived at that framework. And Federalism implies the relationship between the individual States and Federal Gov't, again the framework, but not how we elect our leaders

:rofl2:
 
hahaha yeah, he likely ain't going to explain anything... These types can't seem to form their own arguments, so they chant slogans and buzzwords instead.

I've historically compared these types to being robots. They get programmed (and are ultimately controlled) by the leftists within the federal government, and the leftist media soundbites are their software updates.

The liberal hive mind is fascinating, isn't it?
 
Clinton won 487 counties nationwide, compared with 2,626 for President-elect Donald Trump.

But hey let's let the takers decide who should win!
 
No, I don't.
Are you stupid, dishonest, or both? I suspect the latter, based on your posts.

No, what you are doing now is attempting to save face, too late, you implied in your posts that Democrats didn't care about the electoral college prior to 2016, which I easily showed you were incorrect, and now you are attempting to stretch it by claiming only the actual wording you cited would prove Democrats cared prior to 2016.

You f*cked up, not my problem
 
of course they are proposing it they lose when you count all of America and not just big cities!

When you "count all of America" you are counting geography, not people, and last I knew, people elected their leaders, especially in a democratic nation
 
Back
Top