New York Times basically says the Constitution will destroy America

kmgilroy89 said:
Not horseshit at all. You need to learn some history. Slavery played a huge role in the electoral college:
https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

The entire population is represented in a popular vote. Currently, the electoral college disproportionately gives extra votes to smaller states which tend to be rural and as a whole lean Republican. There were 14,181,595 votes in CA in 2016 and 255,849 in WY. So CA had 55.4x as many votes but only 18.3x as many electoral college votes. This means that a vote in CA is worth about 33% of a vote in WY. The additional 2 electorate votes every state gets gave Trump an additional 18 electoral college votes over Hillary in 2016 since he won 30 states and she won 20+DC.
More...

Assuming you are right about everything, so what? What are you going to do about.

This is the same conversation that has been had a thousand times. You dont like the constitution. Fine. There are ways to amend it. Every single dem swore in blood that they would make a full effort to change it after the 2016 election. Then the next week they were back to watching Lavern and Shirley reruns and porn.

We get it. The constitution is unconstitutional. Yup. Have fun arguing that one before the Supreme Court.
 
kmgilroy89 said:
Not horseshit at all. You need to learn some history. Slavery played a huge role in the electoral college:
https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

The entire population is represented in a popular vote. Currently, the electoral college disproportionately gives extra votes to smaller states which tend to be rural and as a whole lean Republican. There were 14,181,595 votes in CA in 2016 and 255,849 in WY. So CA had 55.4x as many votes but only 18.3x as many electoral college votes. This means that a vote in CA is worth about 33% of a vote in WY. The additional 2 electorate votes every state gets gave Trump an additional 18 electoral college votes over Hillary in 2016 since he won 30 states and she won 20+DC.
More...

This country was founded as a “Republic” not a “Democracy” although the meaning of Democracy has been diluted over the years.

The House and Senate were designed to balance the equation. House totals mirror population, Senate ensures smaller States have equal representation. EC is a combination of the two.

The Founding Fathers did not want a handful of Large States having control of National Elections and National Laws, hence our current form of Government, it’s worked so far.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Assuming you are right about everything, so what? What are you going to do about.

This is the same conversation that has been had a thousand times. You dont like the constitution. Fine. There are ways to amend it. Every single dem swore in blood that they would make a full effort to change it after the 2016 election. Then the next week they were back to watching Lavern and Shirley reruns and porn.

We get it. The constitution is unconstitutional. Yup. Have fun arguing that one before the Supreme Court.
More...
Nothing will be done about it as long as one party doesn't have control of 3/4 of the states. As long as there is a viable second party it would always be against one of the party's interest to change it and they never will.
 
kmgilroy89 said:
Nothing will be done about it as long as one party doesn't have control of 3/4 of the states. As long as there is a viable second party it would always be against one of the party's interest to change it and they never will.
More...


I see. I asked what you are going to do about and the answer is nothing. Just wait for the planets to align for you off in some hypothetical future.

The correct understanding is that the dems thought that since they had over 30 candidates and that anyone can beat trump, allegedly, that it would not be an issue again. Then your dem primary turned out to be a Loserfest than ended out with a SETTLE FOR JOE campaign slogan. Concentrate on finding a good candidate and this problem will go away for you.
 
Wallet said:
This country was founded as a “Republic” not a “Democracy” although the meaning of Democracy has been diluted over the years.

The House and Senate were designed to balance the equation. House totals mirror population, Senate ensures smaller States have equal representation. EC is a combination of the two.

The Founding Fathers did not want a handful of Large States having control of National Elections and National Laws, hence our current form of Government, it’s worked so far.
More...
With weaker third parties this year (I don't think the Libertarian Party will get close to 3.28% this time, looking like it's going to be a lot more like 2012 than 2016) if Trump wins re-election he's likely to be the first candidate in history to win the presidency while his opponent gets a majority (>50%) of the votes.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
I see. I asked what you are going to do about and the answer is nothing. Just wait for the planets to align for you off in some hypothetical future.

Nice.
More...
I disagree with it and I'm going continue to voice my opposition. Other than that, I'm not going to do much. No protests for me. No starting a political movement. I might post more about it on here though.
 
kmgilroy89 said:
With weaker third parties this year (I don't think the Libertarian Party will get close to 3.28% this time, looking like it's going to be a lot more like 2012 than 2016) if Trump wins re-election he's likely to be the first candidate in history to win the presidency while his opponent gets a majority (>50%) of the votes.
More...


The issue will be how Dems do in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which cost them the election. I think they know they got NY, NJ and CA wrapped up but there are chances to win Southern states and those 3 blue ones they lost if they focus on the issues important to those states and move away from base ass kissing.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
I see. I asked what you are going to do about and the answer is nothing. Just wait for the planets to align for you off in some hypothetical future.

The correct understanding is that the dems thought that since they had over 30 candidates and that anyone can beat trump, allegedly, that it would not be an issue again. Then your dem primary turned out to be a Loserfest than ended out with a SETTLE FOR JOE campaign slogan. Concentrate on finding a good candidate and this problem will go away for you.
More...

In response to your updated statement, like the GOP primary in 2016, the Dem primary was obviously super crowded. They didn't narrow it down quick enough. When it became Bernie (who could not win states like FL) and the field, it was that Biden was the only person with the name recognition to beat Bernie. Nobody else would have been able to galvanize the black vote. At least unlike the GOP, they were able to see it as Bernie vs. the field and find the candidate best positioned to take him on. The other GOP candidates didn't realize it was Trump vs. the field until it was too late. They didn't take him seriously enough and were hoping he would fade away like a Michelle Bachmann, but never did.
 
El OchoCinco said:
The issue will be how Dems do in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which cost them the election. I think they know they got NY, NJ and CA wrapped up but there are chances to win Southern states and those 3 blue ones they lost if they focus on the issues important to those states and move away from base ass kissing.
More...
There's really 2 ways to win, Trump gains nothing then the Sun Belt (FL/AZ/NC) and the Rust Belt (MI/WI/PA). Winning GA/TX and OH/IA could be pickups extended from the formers if Trump falters from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top