One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Electoral College Was Terrible From the Start
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Sep 8, 2019 16:40:45   #
rumitoid
 
Before we get to the Electoral College, can we talk about Alexander Hamilton?

As a political figure, Hamilton was volatile, mercurial, choleric, vindictive, conniving, disloyal, and incontinent; those personal flaws eventually led to his death in a duel with Aaron Burr. We remember him because he was also smart, creative, dashing, and decisive. And if you’d had a case in front of a New York court, he’d have been the lawyer to hire. Brilliant doesn’t do justice to his advocacy skills.

But an advocate is what he was. If he were a car salesman today, he could convince you that you really don’t want the backup camera in your family minivan, because this baby here knows not to back into walls.

It’s in that context that we should read his panegyric, from “Federalist No. 68,” to the “mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States” by the electors, a “small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, [who] will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” The electors, he assured us, will be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Reply
Sep 8, 2019 16:44:47   #
Liberty Tree
 
rumitoid wrote:
Before we get to the Electoral College, can we talk about Alexander Hamilton?

As a political figure, Hamilton was volatile, mercurial, choleric, vindictive, conniving, disloyal, and incontinent; those personal flaws eventually led to his death in a duel with Aaron Burr. We remember him because he was also smart, creative, dashing, and decisive. And if you’d had a case in front of a New York court, he’d have been the lawyer to hire. Brilliant doesn’t do justice to his advocacy skills.

But an advocate is what he was. If he were a car salesman today, he could convince you that you really don’t want the backup camera in your family minivan, because this baby here knows not to back into walls.

It’s in that context that we should read his panegyric, from “Federalist No. 68,” to the “mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States” by the electors, a “small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, [who] will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” The electors, he assured us, will be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
Before we get to the Electoral College, can we tal... (show quote)


Still cannot get over Hillary's loss. If the situation was reversed your post would never appear. Instead you would be telling us how great the Electoral College was.

Reply
Sep 8, 2019 16:50:14   #
rumitoid
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Still cannot get over Hillary's loss. If the situation was reversed your post would never appear. Instead you would be telling us how great the Electoral College was.


I have a lot more integrity than that. Why do most of you guys usually insult?

Reply
 
 
Sep 8, 2019 16:53:26   #
Radiance3
 
rumitoid wrote:
Before we get to the Electoral College, can we talk about Alexander Hamilton?

As a political figure, Hamilton was volatile, mercurial, choleric, vindictive, conniving, disloyal, and incontinent; those personal flaws eventually led to his death in a duel with Aaron Burr. We remember him because he was also smart, creative, dashing, and decisive. And if you’d had a case in front of a New York court, he’d have been the lawyer to hire. Brilliant doesn’t do justice to his advocacy skills.

But an advocate is what he was. If he were a car salesman today, he could convince you that you really don’t want the backup camera in your family minivan, because this baby here knows not to back into walls.

It’s in that context that we should read his panegyric, from “Federalist No. 68,” to the “mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States” by the electors, a “small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, [who] will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” The electors, he assured us, will be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
Before we get to the Electoral College, can we tal... (show quote)

=================

It would be unconstitutional to removing the electoral college for it will deny the rest of the 50 states from the electoral process. If you use popular votes, only NY, California, and Chicago could decide the election. The 47 states are disenfranchised. It is unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers in 1789, who framed the constitution and requiring the electoral college were brilliant thus now the deciding factor. A presidential candidate can win both the popular vote and the electoral college. But when a presidential candidate has more electoral college votes than the other, then the candidate with higher electoral votes win the election.
Presidents who won via the majority of electoral votes.
1888 Benjamin Harrison 233/401
2000 George W. Bush 271/538
2016 Donald Trump 304/538

In 2016 Hillary Clinton had edge on the popular votes of 2.6 million. It was also found that millions were illegal votes from California alone. There were many other states that illegal votes were cast for Clinton.
Many states had more votes than registered voters. The dead voted also.

https://twitter.com/Patrici15767099/status/1022292272652533762

Reply
Sep 8, 2019 17:03:04   #
Rose42
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Still cannot get over Hillary's loss. If the situation was reversed your post would never appear. Instead you would be telling us how great the Electoral College was.



Reply
Sep 8, 2019 17:06:08   #
rumitoid
 
Radiance3 wrote:
=================

It would be unconstitutional to removing the electoral college for for it will deny the rest of the 50 states from the electoral process. If you use popular votes, only NYC, California, and Chicago could decide the election. The 47 states are disenfranchised. It is unconstitutional. That Founding Fathers in 1789, who framed the constitution and requiring the electoral college were brilliant thus now the deciding factor. A presidential candidate can win both the popular vote and the electoral college. But when a presidential candidate has more electoral college votes than the other, then the candidate with higher electoral votes win the election.
Presidents who won via the majority of electoral votes.
1888 Benjamin Harrison 233/401
2000 George W. Bush 271/538
2016 Donald Trump 304/538
================= br br It would be unconstitutio... (show quote)


George W. Bush is a lie."

Reply
Sep 8, 2019 17:09:21   #
Gatsby
 
rumitoid wrote:
Before we get to the Electoral College, can we talk about Alexander Hamilton?

As a political figure, Hamilton was volatile, mercurial, choleric, vindictive, conniving, disloyal, and incontinent; those personal flaws eventually led to his death in a duel with Aaron Burr. We remember him because he was also smart, creative, dashing, and decisive. And if you’d had a case in front of a New York court, he’d have been the lawyer to hire. Brilliant doesn’t do justice to his advocacy skills.

But an advocate is what he was. If he were a car salesman today, he could convince you that you really don’t want the backup camera in your family minivan, because this baby here knows not to back into walls.

It’s in that context that we should read his panegyric, from “Federalist No. 68,” to the “mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States” by the electors, a “small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, [who] will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” The electors, he assured us, will be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
Before we get to the Electoral College, can we tal... (show quote)


The tools are all there, to fix whatever we may agree is wrong with our Constitution.

It's a poor workman, who blames his tools.

Reply
 
 
Sep 8, 2019 17:09:26   #
rumitoid
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Still cannot get over Hillary's loss. If the situation was reversed your post would never appear. Instead you would be telling us how great the Electoral College was.


Same old Trippe from you guys when evidence overwhelms you. Silence!

Reply
Sep 8, 2019 17:12:28   #
Digger47
 
You must think that only high population areas should decide who becomes president. The rest of us be rammed!

Reply
Sep 8, 2019 17:18:09   #
Digger47
 
You must think that only high population areas should decide who becomes president. The rest of us might as well just stay home!

Reply
Sep 8, 2019 17:18:38   #
rumitoid
 
Rose42 wrote:


Disappointing, Rose. You turn out to be just a hater.

Reply
 
 
Sep 8, 2019 17:21:12   #
Radiance3
 
rumitoid wrote:
George W. Bush is a lie."


============
That case went to the SC. Al Gore lost.

So rumitoid, are you smarter than the facts? No wonder you always have pain in your body. I think that is God's gift for your mental confusion and delusions. I tried to pray for you when you were sick. But God will not listen to that unless you have your faith.

Reply
Sep 8, 2019 17:24:41   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Radiance3 wrote:
=================

It would be unconstitutional to removing the electoral college for it will deny the rest of the 50 states from the electoral process. If you use popular votes, only NY, California, and Chicago could decide the election. The 47 states are disenfranchised. It is unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers in 1789, who framed the constitution and requiring the electoral college were brilliant thus now the deciding factor. A presidential candidate can win both the popular vote and the electoral college. But when a presidential candidate has more electoral college votes than the other, then the candidate with higher electoral votes win the election.
Presidents who won via the majority of electoral votes.
1888 Benjamin Harrison 233/401
2000 George W. Bush 271/538
2016 Donald Trump 304/538

In 2016 Hillary Clinton had edge on the popular votes of 2.6 million. It was also found that millions were illegal votes from California alone. There were many other states that illegal votes were cast for Clinton.
Many states had more votes than registered voters. The dead voted also.

https://twitter.com/Patrici15767099/status/1022292272652533762
================= br br It would be unconstitutio... (show quote)

Arguing the effects of California's & New York's (add Illinois) popular/electoral voting edge is weak.

2017's top ten states, by population, in the U.S.A.: According to the 2016 election results, as one can see, the Dems certainly did not dominate the urban states and thus, their electoral votes. According to the numbers below, the GOP actually has a popular vote edge of about thirty million among the top ten states in population....

1. California 39,536,653...Democrats
2. Texas 28,304,596...GOP
3. Florida 20,984,400...GOP
4. New York 19,849,399...Democrats
5. Pennsylvania 12,805,537...GOP
6. Illinois 12,802,023...Democrats
7. Ohio 11,658,609...GOP
8. Georgia 10,429,379...GOP
9. North Carolina 10,273,419...GOP
10. Michigan 9,936,211...GOP

BTW, I am fine with the electoral college system, but if & when there is a constitutional amendment eliminating it in favor of the popular vote, I could/would accept such a decision.

Reply
Sep 8, 2019 17:31:10   #
Rose42
 
rumitoid wrote:
Disappointing, Rose. You turn out to be just a hater.


No, you are confusing your opinion with fact and it looks like you've plagiarized again. Hilary lost. Get over it. That's what this is about. You're not fooling anyone.

Reply
Sep 8, 2019 17:32:48   #
Radiance3
 
slatten49 wrote:
Arguing the effects of California's & New York's (add Illinois) electoral voting power is weak.

2017's top ten states, by population, in the U.S.A.: According to the 2016 election results, as one can see, the Dems certainly did not dominate the urban states and thus, their electoral votes. According to the numbers below, the GOP actually has a popular vote edge of about thirty million among the top ten states in population....

1. California 39,536,653...Democrats
2. Texas 28,304,596...GOP
3. Florida 20,984,400...GOP
4. New York 19,849,399...Democrats
5. Pennsylvania 12,805,537...GOP
6. Illinois 12,802,023...Democrats
7. Ohio 11,658,609...GOP
8. Georgia 10,429,379...GOP
9. North Carolina 10,273,419...GOP
10. Michigan 9,936,211...GOP

BTW, I am fine with the electoral college system, but if & when there is a constitutional amendment eliminating it in favor of the popular vote, I could/would accept such a decision.
Arguing the effects of California's & New York... (show quote)

==============
Sorry Slatt, here we won't agree again.
We could not remove the electoral college votes. Even majority votes are coming from more populated states, there are still states that could be disenfranchised. Thereby violating the XV Amendment Rights of the people. All states must have the right to decide.

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.