The insanity and stupidity of the undemocratic Electoral College explained

Amending the Constitution:

Step 1: Two-thirds of both houses of Congress pass a proposed constitutional amendment. This sends the proposed amendment to the states for ratification. o Step 2: Three-fourths of the states (38 states) ratify the proposed amendment, either by their legislatures or special ratifying conventions.Amending the Constitution:

Lots of luck getting two-thirds and three-fourths of any group to agree.
 
Cinnabar said:
We Should Run The Presidential Election The Way We Run EVERY Other Election


Relegate this antiquated mess to the dustbin of history already!
Click to expand...

Again....a leftist TROLLING in order to prompt others to ignore the US RULE OF LAW. Who'd thunk it.....a leftist promoting lawlessness. :bigthink:There is a procedure for changing the constitutional rule of law....amend it through a super majority ratification process. Proceed......simply get 75% of THE STATES to agree with you, THE CONSITUTION needs to be changed so large populated areas can run ruff shod over less populated states. Easy Peasy. Until then YOUR illegal immigrant votes are WORTHLESS, as they only exist in large populated LIBERAL SANCTUARY STATES. Regardless of how many illegal votes you can count.....they only amount up to a certain amount of Electoral College value.

Question? If you do away with the EC.....what do you do with the SENATE that ignores population and allows only "2" votes regardless of population? Will you totally go to.....IN A VERTABIM manner......the language found in the former USSR constitution? :dunno: Its easy to see.....you have thought this out quite well....no?

The left is populated with "EMOTIONAL TWATS".
 
Last edited:
nolongertolerant said:
Yes. Making a liberal look the fool. You bring it upon yourselves and make it quite easy.
Click to expand...

It's funny how liberals had NO problem with the Electoral College until the 2016 election. Then their dear Killery lost, not by a close margin, but by 306-232 in Electoral College votes. Thank GOD our forefathers were intelligent, wise and intuitive enough to create the Electoral College. It prevents just a few states from electing our president. Our whole country is represented BECAUSE of the Electoral College.
 
Steven VanderMolen said:
It's funny how liberals had NO problem with the Electoral College until the 2016 election. Then their dear Killery lost, not by a close margin, but by 306-232 in Electoral College votes. Thank GOD our forefathers were intelligent, wise and intuitive enough to create the Electoral College. It prevents just a few states from electing our president. Our whole country is represented BECAUSE of the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

Hey, libs, any intelligent comments about this? I don't think there will be any.
 
Steven VanderMolen said:
It's funny how liberals had NO problem with the Electoral College until the 2016 election. Then their dear Killery lost, not by a close margin, but by 306-232 in Electoral College votes. Thank GOD our forefathers were intelligent, wise and intuitive enough to create the Electoral College. It prevents just a few states from electing our president. Our whole country is represented BECAUSE of the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

Yes. What they fail to realize is the electoral college protects them also should things turn the other way.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Only a Myth my friend!

MYTH: A federal constitutional amendment is necessary for changing the current method of electing the President.

The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.

The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
Click to expand...

They did not use winner-take-all because they did not have popular votes. There is nothing in the Constitution about the people voting for presidential electors. The states have the power to choose electors and they eventually gave that role to the voters.

To change that would require changes in each state. Federal legislation cannot change the constitutional power of the states to choose electors. States could return to having the state legislature choose electors and eliminate the popular vote entirely like they did originally.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Only a Myth my friend!

MYTH: A federal constitutional amendment is necessary for changing the current method of electing the President.

The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.

The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.

Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision.

The winner-take-all rule is used today in 48 of the 50 states because it was enacted as a state statute in those states, under the same provision of the U.S. Constitution (empowering the states to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes) being used to enact the National Popular Vote plan.

Winner-take-all statutes may be repealed in the same way they were enacted—namely, through each state’s process for enacting and repealing state laws. Therefore, a federal constitutional amendment is not necessary to change the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

The Constitution’s grant of exclusive power to the states to decide how presidential elections are conducted was not a historical accident or mistake, but was intended as a “check and balance” on a sitting President who, in conjunction with a compliant Congress, might manipulate election rules to perpetuate himself in office.
Click to expand...
you have a better chance of finding a cure for your constipation......
 
reagansghost said:
the last two Repub 'presidents' took the WH after losing the popular vote...……..THAT'S why all the rubes go for it
Click to expand...

If you could beat Trump in 2020 by winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote would you be happy? Would that make you a rube?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you have a better chance of finding a cure for your constipation......
Click to expand...

Not if I could convince people like you to appreciate what a true Democracy can do for us as a nation, and what we could do to set the best example of Democracy for the rest of the world.

What I don't get is the fact that Republicans have lost all faith in Democracy, and are showing little respect for it because they now fear Democracy.

Let's get back to Democracy pal! We may not always get our way individually. Our guy may not always win. But we can rest assured that the one in charge is who the majority of us want as a leader, and we may just have to work in the confines of that.

And we will never ever again have a president that is unpopular from the moment he steps into office and leaving the majority of the country in discontent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top