Why?
Will you understand if he can't explain?
Why?
.”Routinely” Lol.
the framers never intended the Constitution to be a dead document, if they had, they wouldn't have included an Amendmemt procedure
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
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.
Maybe you can cite the text that says DEMOCRATS called the Electoral College an "18th century embarrassment" prior to November 9th, 2016.
I suspect your expectation is realistic.
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
Too funny, now he wants the actual wording to prove Democrats opposed the electoral college prior to 2016, next he'll demand the video
I don't recall DEMOCRATS calling the Electoral College an "18th century embarrassment" prior to November 9th, 2016.
![]()
Will you understand if he can't explain?
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.
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?
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
what does the 22d amendment have to do with the EC? say what?
of course the constitution can be amended CFNM, that's what the Dems are proposing
wow
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.
of course they are proposing it they lose when you count all of America and not just big cities!
No, I don't.
Are you stupid, dishonest, or both? I suspect the latter, based on your posts.
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!
of course they are proposing it they lose when you count all of America and not just big cities!