You do know larger population centers have more electoral college votes.
I think only thrice has an american president has been elected while losing the
popular vote.
The Official KAG rally in Orlando thread.
- Thread starter K2C Sooner
- Start date
I think only thrice has an american president has been elected while losing the
popular vote.
Hopefully hundreds of thousands. If not millions.
If you didn't want to watch Pablos' full video. Just watch this segment starting at the 31:14 mark.
Last edited:
No. Larger population STATES have greater representation in the EC based on total number of House of Representatives delegation and their two Senators.
Your 2nd sentence has no bearing on well anything. It's a fact with out a purpose. My answer to your point is, "so what?" The EC wasn't designed to ensure the president was selected from the popular vote. It just so happens that it mostly has worked out that way. But that's not ever been the intent.
It wasn't until butthurt liberals lose that they try to redefine success.
Last edited:
Where ever you went to jr. high and sr. high you need to go back and sue them. Whomever taught you government & civics failed miserably. If the candidate I voted for lost the EC but won the popular vote by 100 million votes I would accept it, because that is the way the system works. Without the EC this country is run by whatever the citizens of a handful of states want. The framers were geniuses you and the rest of the whiners on the other hand are exactly why the EC should never change.
Your candidate was a flawed, lazy, fat ass, entitled acting loser....had she run a campaign addressing any number of subjects versus what she did she might have won. Instead the "participation trophy award crowd" wants to move the goal posts because they didn't get their way and are so blinded by their hate for Trump they have to wear depends and suck on a pacifier while watching the news. You're all such unrepentant pussies. Sorry, most of the country doesn't want the US run by the masses of liberal clowns who constitute the vast majority of the population in failing democratically run cities.
Rutherford B Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, GW and Trump all have won the EC while losing the popular vote. Thrown in the screwing Nixon got by the Kennedy/LBJ machine and I just don't see where anyone has anything to cry about. Grow the hell up, or start pushing for a states convention and change the constitution.
Trump is the 45th presiden in US history and only two other president won without winning the popular. One of them was G Bush
If this happened, the EC would be gone the next day.
Just because it is the way the system works currently doesn't mean it is the way the system should work. Nor does it mean the system shouldn't be changed.
The system once elected United States Senates in the state legislatures. We changed that though. We just didn't say, "well, its the way the system works."
Incorrect and this has been shown to be incorrect over and over again. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. (See video below).
The framers came up with the EC to solve a division between northern and southern interests. It was a northern framer (James Wilson) who proposed direct election of the President but southerns like Madison couldn't allow that to happen. Their slaves couldn't vote and a direct election of the President would give too much power to the northern states.
A direct election of the President was a deal-breaker for southerners. That is why we have the EC.
Thing is, we have done away with slavery and this isn't 1787 anymore. The late 1700s reasons for the EC don't exist anymore.
Actually, other than slavery, not much has changed. The population density of the coasts would create the same scenario that the southerners of the time were concerned about. So no, the reason for the EC hasn't been eliminated.
Please go back and sue your public school.....https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/americans_are_in_desperate_need_of_a_lesson_on_the_history_of_slavery.html#ixzz5oz2xazC7
Your above assertions are so dam wrong on so much it is amazing you even post such nonsense. Read the linked article then come back and tell me how the EC was to solve a division between the north and south, geez man. It was to enumerate representation in the house and had nothing to do with the EC additionally slave importation was outlawed in the US in 1808.
The fact that in 1913 Senators began to be elected by majority vote in their states was a huge mistake and has been injurious to the republic ever since. Senators, by being elected by state legislatures, had to be true to their state and not their party. Now it is screw the whole US because of your party affiliation.
I get it you want to change the constitution because that's "just what should be done" well to f'in bad. There is a vehicle for that its called a states convention. So get the rest of your little liberal demons together and push for one. Promise it won't turn out like you think though. There are way more people in this country that hate politicians than like them, and would be more than happy to restrict their terms, restrict their pay, restrict their staffs and make them live under the same laws they pass for us bottom feeders.
Just because you think they are wrong doesn't mean they are wrong. Everything I asserted is true. I could give you more, but you will just reject it and attack me personally so there really is no point.
I disagree but I really could care less what your opinion on the 17th Amendment is. Whether it was right or wrong wasn't my point. The point was that just because a system works one way at the moment doesn't mean the system can't be changed.
When the system is broken or outdated, we can change it as we did with the 17th Amendment. The EC is outdated and we don't need any more. We need to get rid of it and directly elect the President. It is time to once again change the system.
I don't. I love the United States. I just disagree with you politically.
What next, going to call me a communist?
How many times has the Constitution been amended? Every time we amend the Constitution, does that mean we are becoming more communist?
Then there is a mutual indifference in options here and likewise my option of your interpretations is complete and utter indifference.
If the EC was such a pain in the ass why did it’s dissolution become such a hot topic in the last 3 years and not be a permanent part of the liberal convention plank for the last 30 years?
Fine. Amend the Constitution to boot out godless Commies.
That's something any true American could get behind.
It has become a hot topic because we have now elected two Presidents in the past 16 years (two out of five election cycles) who did not win the popular vote.
Just goes to prove that Democrat controlled states cheat their asses off in the ballot box. Which is exactly one of the reasons to keep the electoral college. Cause Oklahoma would submit eleventybillion votes for a republican if the popular vote mattered.
Considering how the electoral college is how we elect a President, yes I would accept the results of that even if the popular vote was in our favor. What you and your ilk do not seem to understand is the Founders were smart enough to realize large populations centers should not control the entire country.
This is incorrect and been shown to be incorrect over and over and over again. Stop just repeating a talking point and actually do a little research.
You can start by viewing the video I linked to above.
I did. All that video did was give a brief overview of how the electoral college works. It only references the claim we are discussing around the 3:05 mark with a very general statement that a candidate "might" concentrate all his efforts in the biggest cities or states, while providing no evidence to back that statement up. It simply repeated a talking point, that is all.
The video I linked to provided evidence re population distribution (statistics). Perhaps you should watch the video and do some research outside the right-wing bubble you live in.
And yes, I know that is asking a lot of you.
Last edited:
More of that revisionist history you liberals are so famous for. I don't mind if you disagree with something but don't lie.
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
No one is lying.
btw, I was responding to the claim that large population centers would control the entire country. I know why the founders compromised on the electoral college in the late 1700s and that has already been addressed.
Evidentially you don't have a clue why the founders created the electoral college if you think the election of the President should be decided by the popular vote.
He claims to be in paralegal school. I have my doubts since he argues like someone barely qualified to clean the parking lot of Taco Bell. You're wasting your time.
On the subject of the Electoral College, that's another reason that Hillary was too incompetent to be president. If she didn't know that Presidential elections were decided by the Electoral College after all those years in and around the federal government, she's definitely not qualified to hold the office. She should have studied the Constitution before entering the race.
