Circle half the population of the world
November 13th, 2016 at 2:09:27 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
They count, just in proportion to everybody else. If it was your guy who won like Trump won, you'd be jumping up and down like an 8 year old girl at her b-day party instead of being bitter and resentful. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
November 13th, 2016 at 3:44:40 PM permalink | |
stinkingliberal Member since: Nov 9, 2016 Threads: 17 Posts: 731 |
I'm sure there are only a few people who are so tightly wound that they care one way or another. |
November 13th, 2016 at 3:46:12 PM permalink | |
stinkingliberal Member since: Nov 9, 2016 Threads: 17 Posts: 731 |
Don't misrepresent a quotation. I was quoting another poster. Taking what people say out of context is a childish and crude tactic. |
November 13th, 2016 at 3:51:58 PM permalink | |
kenarman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 14 Posts: 4515 |
Or Kennedys "but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin |
November 13th, 2016 at 4:56:38 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
Or almost Clinton's. Now there's talk about Michele running for congress and then president so they can continue Barry's 3rd term. Never gonna happen. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
November 13th, 2016 at 5:03:18 PM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
It must have taken true vision. Two years after the constitution was ratified, only 24 urban places with population over 2500 were counted. Philadelphia city, Northern Liberties township, and Southwark district in Pennsylvania were combined into one city 65 years later. There was only one urban area south of Virginia. 1 New York city, NY *..................... 33,131 2 Philadelphia city, PA *................. 28,522 3 Boston town, MA *....................... 18,320 4 Charleston city, SC..................... 16,359 5 Baltimore town, MD...................... 13,503 6 Northern Liberties township, PA *....... 9,913 7 Salem town, MA.......................... 7,921 8 Newport town, RI........................ 6,716 9 Providence town, RI *................... 6,380 10t Marblehead town, MA..................... 5,661 10t Southwark district, PA *................ 5,661 12 Gloucester town, MA..................... 5,317 13 Newburyport town, MA.................... 4,837 14 Portsmouth town, NH..................... 4,720 15 Sherburne town (Nantucket), MA *........ 4,620 16 Middleborough town, MA.................. 4,526 17 New Haven city, CT *.................... 4,487 18 Richmond city, VA....................... 3,761 19 Albany city, NY......................... 3,498 20 Norfolk borough, VA..................... 2,959 21 Petersburg town, VA..................... 2,828 22 Alexandria town, VA *................... 2,748 23 Hartford city, CT *..................... 2,683 24 Hudson city, NY......................... 2,584 The Great Compromise brought all the states together by guaranteeing that the smallest states would have at least 3 members of Congress. Otherwise the Union would not have been formed. The Electoral college simply reflected the congressional allocation. It's important, however, to distinguish between the Electoral College and the "Winner take All" (WTA) method of allocation EC votes. The WTA is not in the constitution, and was simply adopted by states to give them maximum clout. If all fifty states used the Main/Nebraska system of allocating EC votes then the outcome would have been different. Romney won 99 congressional districts in states won by Obama, and Obama won 32 congressional districts in states won by Romney. If they used the Nebraska/Maine system Romney would have won 99-32=67 additional EC votes, and he only needed 64 more to become POTUS. Most rational human beings understand using a pure popular vote would run the danger of near riots in determining the validity of very close elections or determining the POTUS if their are three or more nearly equal candidates. But much of the objections to the EC are actually objections to the WTA system. |
November 13th, 2016 at 5:28:57 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18210 |
It would lead to tyranny. Think about it. Look at the political machines in NY and Chicago alone. One Party Rule. GOP only got to be mayor because the place was unlivable. NYC's only GOP AG in 60 years was on "Law and Order." Chicago is run in a way Putin would admire. How much more voter fraud if the general was popular vote? The USA would be Mexico. The President is a fink. |
November 13th, 2016 at 5:31:45 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18210 |
I keep wondering if people are serious about that. Liberals would love it, but even if they find a safe Senate seat she is just not personable for politics. I don't think he has the same mafia-like control of the party Bill had to set Hillary up. The President is a fink. |
November 13th, 2016 at 6:40:00 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 | New WaPo/ABC poll shows 75% of Americans are OK with the election, 14% think it's not legit. Compare that to 2000 when 11% thought Bush winning was not legit. So we've been here before, sore loserville. Big yawn.. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
November 13th, 2016 at 6:45:06 PM permalink | |
stinkingliberal Member since: Nov 9, 2016 Threads: 17 Posts: 731 |
Yes. Most rational human beings understand that the sun is green, as well. I don't think you can raise the specter of riots as an excuse to make elections unfair. Particularly today, it's easy to verify the results of elections. It might not have been 200 years ago. The real flaw in the EC system is that the voters don't need representatives--electors--to make their will known. It's quite simple to just tally up all the popular votes and see who got the most--nationwide. The Republicans love the EC because it enables them to manipulate elections. It's worked for them twice, after all, causing the candidate who actually lost to get elected. When a candidate gets 400,000 votes fewer than his closest rival, yet gets well over half the electoral votes, the system is obviously flawed. And I'm sure that Republicans would be decrying the horrible "rigged" system if Trump had gotten more popular votes but lost the EC. |