the e*******l college is fatally flawad: When the Founders set up the e*******l college scheme for electing the president, it seemed like a good idea. But the way it functions now...

publican

When the Founders set up the e*******l college scheme for electing the president, it seemed like a good idea. But the way it functions now contains a fatal problem.

To show the principle involved I am going to use very approximate numbers. Those who can't handle simple arithmetic, and those who don't understand what "very approximate" means, need read no further.

Let's assume there are 200 million v**ers distributed among 50 states, so each state has 4 million v**ers. We also assume each state uses the "winner take all" method. To win the e******n a candidate then needs to win 26 states. In each state he needs 2M plus 1 v**es. So altogether he needs to win 52,000,026 v**es, which just over a quarter of the total v**es. In this way a demagogue with a solid base of less than a third of the e*****rate can become president.

XXX Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon

publican wrote:

When the Founders set up the e*******l college sch... (show quote)

First off: learn how to spell if you can.

Second. If we didn't have an e*******l system NY CA TX and FL would be the only place to campaign. Therefor the rest of the country would get overlooked.

Third the scene you drew isn't valid because not every state has the same amount of people.

publican

XXX wrote:

First off: learn how to spell if you can.

Second. If we didn't have an e*******l system NY CA TX and FL would be the only place to campaign. Therefor the rest of the country would get overlooked.

Third the scene you drew isn't valid because not every state has the same amount of people.

Thar hooch you are drinking has made you blind. You didn't read my 2nd paragraph.

XXX Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon

publican wrote:

Thar hooch you are drinking has made you blind. You didn't read my 2nd paragraph.

I pointed out that your calculation s aren't valid. Can't you see? I can figure what you did but it's not valid.

publican

XXX wrote:

I pointed out that your calculation s aren't valid. Can't you see? I can figure what you did but it's not valid.

You are a good example of why ignoramuses should not be allowed to deal with even slightly complicated issues. It we take into account that the smaller states have more e*****rs per v**er than the larger states, then the result is that it is possible for a president to be elected by even less than a quarter of the e*****rate.

Liberty Tree

publican wrote:

When the Founders set up the e*******l college sch... (show quote)

The founders chose the E*******l College for the same reason they gave each state an equal number of Senators. They did not want a few large states controlling the country. They wanted all to have a voice. Do you want to change the make-up of the Senate?

publican

Liberty Tree wrote:

The founders chose the E*******l College for the same reason they gave each state an equal number of Senators. They did not want a few large states controlling the country. They wanted all to have a voice. Do you want to change the make-up of the Senate?

Way to go! You totally missed the point.

Liberty Tree

publican wrote:

Way to go! You totally missed the point.

I showed the fallacy of your failed "point."

American Vet

publican wrote:

When the Founders set up the e*******l college sch... (show quote)

Your basing your content on a completely unrealistic assumption, rendering your conclusion invalid.

BIRDMAN

publican wrote:

When the Founders set up the e*******l college sch... (show quote)

🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪

publican

American Vet wrote:

Your basing your content on a completely unrealistic assumption, rendering your conclusion invalid.

i didn't intent my post to be a reading test, but apparently it has become one. And you flunk.

Try reading the 2nd paragraph again, with comprehension.

BIRDMAN

publican wrote:

i didn't intent my post to be a reading test, but apparently it has become one. And you flunk.

Try reading the 2nd paragraph again, with comprehension.

🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪

American Vet

publican wrote:

i didn't intent my post to be a reading test, but apparently it has become one. And you flunk.

Try reading the 2nd paragraph again, with comprehension.

Quite to the contrary, I get an "A" for pointing out your illogical assumption and the fact it is out of touch with reality.

Gatsby

publican wrote:

When the Founders set up the e*******l college sch... (show quote)

You ass u me a great deal. Your theory is based on a hypothetical possibility, not reality.

publican

Gatsby wrote:

You ass u me a great deal. Your theory is based on a hypothetical possibility, not reality.

How many times do I have to say it? Here is the 2nd paragraph again:

"To show the principle involved I am going to use very approximate numbers. Those who can't handle simple arithmetic, and those who don't understand what "very approximate" means, need read no further."