Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Why we need the electoral college

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mugwump View Post
    Sure. Because there's no justification why a smaller number of people who happen to live in rural areas have more say in who becomes president than a greater number of people who happen to live in cities. Of course there are other even more reasons, but those other reasons aren't illustrated so starkly by the graphic.
    This is why you waste your time attempting to engage a liberal. Just defeat them and move forward.


    Icom IC-7800; $10,000 New
    King of the Hill & Best Available
    Until Just Recently

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    District 9
    Posts
    550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoppalong View Post
    You made the point right there. Why Oh Why Should CA. and 2 other states MAKE THE CHOICE for who becomes POTUS. Right there is the answer as to why. Why should just a FEW--- like 3 states make that decision for the country???

    LOL I KNOW why you want it changed. then Hitlary would be POTUS now not Trump, Come on tell the truth....
    It's a stupid way to cast the issue. States shouldn't have anything to do with it. It should be a simple matter of totalling up the votes of all the citizens. It's simple and obvious. One perverse effect of the electoral college is that it negates the votes of people who disagree with the majority of voters in their own states. If you're a California Republican or an Alabama Democrat, your vote for president means nothing,because it's been thrown away before the actual counting of the electoral vote begins.

    But even if you want to cast it into some kind of statewise argument, you still need to justify why the fifteen smallest states, whose population totals 20 million, should have more say over who becomes president than the 40+ million people who live in California. The problem is that for all your yelping about how terrible and unfair it would be for California and New York and the big states with big populations to somehow decide who's president despite the preferences of the folks in North Dakota and Kentucky, it's even more unfair for the small rural states to effectively decide who's president irrespective of the wishes of the majority of the total population.
    "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." --Deuteronomy 25:11-12

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    District 9
    Posts
    550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty34 View Post
    This is why you waste your time attempting to engage a liberal. Just defeat them and move forward.
    Except nobody seems able to defeat me. You guys are like the US in Mexico or Vietnam--you just declare victory and then tuck your tails between your legs and scurry away to avoid facing the actual outcome.
    "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." --Deuteronomy 25:11-12

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Born on a Mountaintop
    Posts
    9,744

    Default

    who are mostly eager to avoid difficult explanations as to why it is fair and just and orderly that the minority to which they belong should be able to rule over the majority. They way they bandy around the word "republic" it sounds suspiciously like their ideal model would be something like the People's Republic of China (PRC).
    Now you are the one who is having a difficult time and have to divert to something entirely out of context and history.

    It is infinitely fair, by the way, to protect the rights of a minority.
    You like the idea od 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner
    Plato once said, “Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools, because they have to say something.”

    "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." "Men willingly believe what they wish to believe."
    Julius Caesar

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    teh intarweb
    Posts
    4,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mugwump View Post
    Except nobody seems able to defeat me.
    Nobody needs to defeat you. Pity you, and your ignorant concepts, perhaps.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

    George Orwell



    Police dog 1, bad guy nothin':

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    District 9
    Posts
    550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davy Crockett View Post
    Now you are the one who is having a difficult time and have to divert to something entirely out of context and history.
    It's not true at all. Everybody seems to want to draw a very strong distinction between "republic" and "democracy" as if the two cannot coexist or be mingled--in which case a place like China totally fits the bill. If it doesn't matter that the person with the most votes gets the office, then why have elections at all? It would after all still be a perfectly good republic, and one untainted by the foul "democracy."

    Quote Originally Posted by Davy Crockett View Post
    It is infinitely fair, by the way, to protect the rights of a minority.
    You like the idea od 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner
    Nope. Minority rights doesn't mean minority rule, which is what you are advocating. Your model is for 2 sheep and 1 wolf to vote on what's for dinner, and saying that the wolf gets to decide because there's only one of him and it would oppress him to allow the sheep to dictate to him what his dietary habits should be.
    "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." --Deuteronomy 25:11-12

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    District 9
    Posts
    550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear View Post
    Nobody needs to defeat you. Pity you, and your ignorant concepts, perhaps.
    Well, if you can actually answer my arguments rather than just sling BS and pretend superiority, let's see it. Otherwise you're just a foul-smelling wind.
    "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." --Deuteronomy 25:11-12

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,574

    Default

    The electoral college was designed to elect the president fairly so no one could buy their way into the office and give all states a fighting chance to participate and believe their vote mattered.
    Now those who believe in participation trophies for losers want to change it because it bit them in the ass one time.
    Can't you dems grow up and accept the facts..

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Born on a Mountaintop
    Posts
    9,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mugwump View Post
    It's not true at all. Everybody seems to want to draw a very strong distinction between "republic" and "democracy" as if the two cannot coexist or be mingled--in which case a place like China totally fits the bill. If it doesn't matter that the person with the most votes gets the office, then why have elections at all? It would after all still be a perfectly good republic, and one untainted by the foul "democracy."



    Nope. Minority rights doesn't mean minority rule, which is what you are advocating. Your model is for 2 sheep and 1 wolf to vote on what's for dinner, and saying that the wolf gets to decide because there's only one of him and it would oppress him to allow the sheep to dictate to him what his dietary habits should be.
    No
    Plato once said, “Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools, because they have to say something.”

    "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." "Men willingly believe what they wish to believe."
    Julius Caesar

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mugwump View Post
    It's a stupid way to cast the issue. States shouldn't have anything to do with it. It should be a simple matter of totalling up the votes of all the citizens. It's simple and obvious. One perverse effect of the electoral college is that it negates the votes of people who disagree with the majority of voters in their own states. If you're a California Republican or an Alabama Democrat, your vote for president means nothing,because it's been thrown away before the actual counting of the electoral vote begins.

    But even if you want to cast it into some kind of statewise argument, you still need to justify why the fifteen smallest states, whose population totals 20 million, should have more say over who becomes president than the 40+ million people who live in California. The problem is that for all your yelping about how terrible and unfair it would be for California and New York and the big states with big populations to somehow decide who's president despite the preferences of the folks in North Dakota and Kentucky, it's even more unfair for the small rural states to effectively decide who's president irrespective of the wishes of the majority of the total population.
    Ignorance gone to seed.


    Icom IC-7800; $10,000 New
    King of the Hill & Best Available
    Until Just Recently

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •