And Hammy. Again, read up on our system. It is possible to be president despite winning only one state. Why the hell do you think Evan Mcmillan ran?

(11-12-2016 11:21 AM)dfarr Wrote:  How many EC threads do you need? You've already proven your ignorance with anything to do with the constitution. Do you have some need to further point out your mental weaknesses?

This is how she operates. Start argument, lose argument, start dodging questions, wait day, start similar thread.

(11-12-2016 06:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And Hammy. Again, read up on our system. It is possible to be president despite winning only one state. Why the hell do you think Evan Mcmillan ran?

So what? The system is set up so we get a winner. Not repeated recounts.
McMuffin would not have been picked by Congress anyway. His ploy was to hope for a tie and force it into Congress.

(11-12-2016 06:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And Hammy. Again, read up on our system. It is possible to be president despite winning only one state. Why the hell do you think Evan Mcmillan ran?

Imagine the crying that you libs would be doing if the House chose the president.

(11-12-2016 06:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 06:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And Hammy. Again, read up on our system. It is possible to be president despite winning only one state. Why the hell do you think Evan Mcmillan ran?

Imagine the crying that you libs would be doing if the House chose the president.

I would take a guy with a background in national security rather than a guy who was condemned by a large number of national security experts.

(11-12-2016 07:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 06:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 06:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And Hammy. Again, read up on our system. It is possible to be president despite winning only one state. Why the hell do you think Evan Mcmillan ran?

Imagine the crying that you libs would be doing if the House chose the president.

I would take a guy with a background in national security rather than a guy who was condemned by a large number of national security experts.

Since I cast my vote for McMullin, I could honestly stand by that statement.

You however are still a loser.

Oh yeah and it's McMullin, with an "i".

(11-12-2016 07:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 06:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 06:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And Hammy. Again, read up on our system. It is possible to be president despite winning only one state. Why the hell do you think Evan Mcmillan ran?

Imagine the crying that you libs would be doing if the House chose the president.

I would take a guy with a background in national security rather than a guy who was condemned by a large number of national security experts.

Since you backed a woman that failed horribly in national security?...The irony of this is overwhelming me.

she didn't fail at national security. but perspective I guess.

(11-12-2016 07:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  she didn't fail at national security. but perspective I guess.

Just fcking with you John. It was just too easy to pass up.

(11-12-2016 07:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 07:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  she didn't fail at national security. but perspective I guess.

Just fcking with you John. It was just too easy to pass up.

yea I was thinking "you are faulting me for not taking NS seriously by blaming me for voting for a candidate with a minor NS issue rather than one with a major NS issue...WTF?" But I know you aren't one to make mental mishaps like that so I figured you were just shooting the **** with me.

(11-12-2016 08:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 07:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 07:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  she didn't fail at national security. but perspective I guess.

Just fcking with you John. It was just too easy to pass up.

yea I was thinking "you are faulting me for not taking NS seriously by blaming me for voting for a candidate with a minor NS issue rather than one with a major NS issue...WTF?" But I know you aren't one to make mental mishaps like that so I figured you were just shooting the **** with me.

My stance that both of these people were unqualified to be POTUS still remains.

The EC is a sham and everyone knows it. It is likely to never go away however as it is an ancient protection against mob rule.

Sent from my SM-T357T using CSNbbs mobile app

(11-12-2016 11:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The EC is a sham and everyone knows it. It is likely to never go away however as it is an ancient protection against mob rule.

Sent from my SM-T357T using CSNbbs mobile app

If it's a protection against mob rule then it's not a sham...

(11-12-2016 11:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The EC is a sham and everyone knows it. It is likely to never go away however as it is an ancient protection against mob rule.

Sent from my SM-T357T using CSNbbs mobile app

False... to it being a sham...If it is? so is the Constitution.
False... to everyone knowing it. I reject knowing it.
True.....It will never go away.
False....It is not ancient at all. Gobekli Tepe is ancient.
True.....and I applaud you for understanding that.

(11-12-2016 06:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:Article 2 Section 1 of the COnstitution provides for an INDIRECT election of the President... NOT a popular vote

Your turn

sure...

In 2016 more votes were cast for Clinton than Trump.

And in 2016, Trump won the electoral college vote and will be sworn in as President under the rules

WHose balls are hurting now?

Quote:

Quote:Wow... You're so poorly informed I dont' know where to start

Paragraph 1... You can only win if you win 11 SPECIFIC states... not ANY 11 states. That should have been obvious

You're right. it was obvious. It was so obvious I felt I didn't have to specifically state that nor should anyone question that is what I was getting at.

Did you just out yourself as having a second identity? Because YOU weren't the person I was talking to about 11 states.

It's an important difference.

Quote:The point is you can win the EC without the small states meaning the EC doesn't protect the small states.

So yes, you're admitting it.

If it doesn't protect the small states from the power of the large ones, then why do we need to get rid of it?

Oh yeah, because it does. It 'lessens' the power of the majority... but it doesn't REMOVE it.

[/quote]

Quote:

Quote:Paragraph 2 is a stupid thing to argue about. House seats are apportioned by population. While they can't go below 1 and each state gets another 2 and that DOES make it not balanced (as I've argued all along and is the point of the discussion)... It's not 76/23.... but I DID say it's more than 50%.

it's only stupid to someone who prides themselves on being an asshat and willingly loves disregarding key elements (such as the popular vote) because those things are inconvenient to his argument.

and we're back to the insults... all you've got....

So Article 2 of the Constitution doesn't exist and instead we have a popular vote?

Then why are you protesting the EC and why isn't Hillary President since she won?

If you think introducing you to reality makes me an asshat, then you're a bigger moron than I thought....

and that's saying something.

Quote:The term "over 50%" needs to be pointed out that it is significantly over 50%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U....population

According to this, the top 11 is about 55%

That's far closer to 'over 50' than to 76

And Hillary lost half of them. If she won more than half, she would have won the EC.

Quote:It brings up the issue that the EC has the possibility of a small fraction of the states steamrolling the rest of the states or a small fraction of the population steamrolling the rest of the population.

Jesus, I can't believe I have to explain the stupidity of your argument here.

A small fraction of the states steamrolling the rest of the states is exactly what a popular vote would do... so instead we represent 'population' in the House of representatives and 435 of the EC votes... plus 3 for DC... and temper it with the 'states' in the Senate and 100 EC votes.

It's why we have 2 houses... and why we have 538 EC votes

You KNEW that....




Didn't you?

Quote:it's a massive, fundamental, and undeniable fault of the EC and according to you, that's not something that is allowed to be said because it hurts your argument and you try to wiggle out of it via some bull**** technicality such as there is no such thing as a popular vote or 11 "specific" states.

So the constitution is a technicality... um... okay. MOST people consider it the authority, especially since Trump is the President and Hillary isn't... and Hillary conceded the election. Sure sounds like SHE thinks it's the authority.

and the 11 states was your stupid hypothetical.


Flaw? It's actually the DESIGN. I suspect when they wrote it, you could have won just 2 or 3 states and won the election.. about the same percentage as now

Quote: this is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.

You don't know where to begin because it's not wrong.

Quote:

Quote:Show me that. I haven't seen ANYONE argue (other than the left) that it completely disregards the weight of the large states... I've seen numerous cons say 'it your candidate won by millions of votes, you might have an argument... which is in direct conflixt with your statement

either you don't read the threads on here or you lack the literacy to properly do so. it has been posted all over this forum and is such a common talking point one of the most popular YouTubers made that the center piece of his argument to refute it. here is one example just to prove how clueless you are:

While it's not directly tied to politics, the large states have special privileges the rest of the country does not. Residents of these states exhibit large state privilege. The electoral college acts as a safe place for smaller states.
-Miko

LMFAO Really? That's what you think that means?

That's really funny. Thanks for brightening my evening.

So where in that comment does it say that it completely disregards the weight of the large states?

It doesn't.

I don't have to guess whether or not YOU lack literacy skills

Quote:

Quote:How does that blow it up? The only one I see saying it completely negates the raw numbers is Bison, and I guess you.

Majority rules, minority rights. TYRANNY of the majority, not 'the will' of the majority. It seems obvious that majorities carry the most weight, but they merely aren't the ONLY weight...

but still, despite being able to count all the votes, we do not measure the winner by a popular vote, but by an electoral vote.

You show me where ANYTHING says we decide the Presidency by holding a popular vote.

I guess by your logic never in the history of man has the minority tyrannized the majority.

I guess by your logic there is no such thing as the constitution which guarantees our rights regardless of who is in power.

I guess by your logic the constitution has never once had an amendment added to it.

I guess by your lack of response you know I'm right and can't actually refute anything I said, so you merely deflect and make MORE stupid comments.

It's had plenty of amendments. None of them have eliminated Article 2 and established a popular vote

I've shown you the EC in the Constitution. Still waiting for you to show me the part that establishes the popular vote for President

I can also so you references to phrases like Tyranny of the Majority from Scholars and Signers and Framers of the Constitution related to the EC. Like the popular vote, 'Tyranny of the minority' is not something in the constitution or the discussion around it, but instead something you've made up. There is no logic to that at all in this context.

(11-12-2016 06:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And Hammy. Again, read up on our system. It is possible to be president despite winning only one state. Why the hell do you think Evan Mcmillan ran?

and you should read your own posts

You said

Quote:hell you can win the EC if you win just one state.

I corrected you.

Once again you say something completely ignorant and then blame me when I correct you.

You keep wanting me to assume that you meant something 'correct' when you very clearly say something incorrect. Given that you keep saying there's a popular vote for President, that's not a presumption you're going to get