over throwing the constitutional electoral college

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,087
17,701
1,743
#61
Dropping the electoral college would be the end of America as we know it.

Think of how many freedoms you would have lost if Al ‘my feet are hot’ Gore and Crooked Hillary Clinton had been elected.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
6,146
3,193
743
48
#62
Once again, you show you absolutely don't mind mob rule by county after Trump won nearly all of them.

Considering how full of deep hate the comments were against President Trump on here, I'm not about to be so wrong and foolish as to believe people would NOT be highly bitter when the popular vote goes against them for the first time and support Electoral College be abolilshed or some other change that gives popular vote more credit.

I believe in freedom and liberty, too, but the winner of the Electoral College doesn't guarantee he will not through executive orders take some forms of freedom and liberty away.

If the Electoral College is so supreme in picking presidents, I know of no other country that has adopted it.
Townie - please pay attention - I am advocating AGAINST mob rule. Trump won the favor of more States.

Other countries are not Republics. (only a few are, and they're mostly communist or socialist).

You do not understand Federalism. You do not understand what it means to be a REPUBLIC - a union of Sovereign States.

Popular national vote is not federalism, it is nationalism (i.e., mob rule).

you don't even seem to be able to comprehend what constitutes mob rule.

You are advocating against self government, and freedom from the central government.

Your statements are by their nature, anti-self government and anti-freedom.

Why, in your words, is a nationalist central government better than a federated republic?
Oh he understands. He's playing the fool to frustrate people. I blocked him long ago because I realized he's obviously smart enough to know he's wrong on most stuff, he just says it to piss people off. Either that or he's just plain stupid which I just can't believe because he talks sports pretty decent.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
6,146
3,193
743
48
#63
NYC has a larger population than 38 states. LA has a larger population than 23 states. I don't think it's healthy for individual cities to have more influence in our presidential election than half of the states in our country. IMO, the electoral college is a good thing because of this.

It would be really interesting to see how the process of campaigning would change if the presidential election was opened up to popular vote. Both sides have states they completely ignore because they know they can't win them.I know a lot of people that never vote because they know our state will vote for the republican candidate. A lot of things would change if we did away with the electoral college.
And change for the worse.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
 
Oct 15, 2003
13,771
2,027
1,743
So Cal
#64
Oh he understands. He's playing the fool to frustrate people. I blocked him long ago because I realized he's obviously smart enough to know he's wrong on most stuff, he just says it to piss people off. Either that or he's just plain stupid which I just can't believe because he talks sports pretty decent.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
I think his level of "intelligence" and "stupidity" changes constantly depending on pot intake.
 
Jun 18, 2010
15,178
2,044
743
Where else but Stillwater
#65
Dropping the electoral college would be the end of America as we know it.

Think of how many freedoms you would have lost if Al ‘my feet are hot’ Gore and Crooked Hillary Clinton had been elected.
LOL, you just don't trust that enough people would vote conservative or Republican. For all I know, Bush II is one of your favorite presidents.
 
Last edited:

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,283
20,803
1,743
#66
No. The electoral college is there for a reason. Just because you are getting your ass kicked doesnt mean you change the rules. You play by them. Maybe the Democrats should change their message to something that aligns with middle america lol. All getting rid of the electoral college would do is silence a large portion of America.
Getting rid of the electoral college would double voter turnout. The electoral college does more to silence voters than anything now. Had it’s purpose but it’s time has passed.
 
Jun 18, 2010
15,178
2,044
743
Where else but Stillwater
#67
Townie - please pay attention - I am advocating AGAINST mob rule. Trump won the favor of more States.

Other countries are not Republics. (only a few are, and they're mostly communist or socialist).

You do not understand Federalism. You do not understand what it means to be a REPUBLIC - a union of Sovereign States.

Popular national vote is not federalism, it is nationalism (i.e., mob rule).

you don't even seem to be able to comprehend what constitutes mob rule.

You are advocating against self government, and freedom from the central government.

Your statements are by their nature, anti-self government and anti-freedom.

Why, in your words, is a nationalist central government better than a federated republic?
Really, all what you're talking about is that Federalism at the presidential election level has the potential to award the minority of voters the winning voice. The result is the country is still deeply divided. The closer the vote the more divided down the middle the country is. You worry to death about mob rule, but how do you think the majority feels about getting their voice snuffed over who the president should be? But for now as long as conservatives are the winning minority voice every time the Electoral College allows it, it will continue to go on. So keep being happy, will ya. It takes both Republicans and Democrats to know what it's like to lose even though they won the popular vote. The shoe being on the other foot may not even happen in your lifetime.

Seriously, California Cowboy, if you're really serious about freedom from central government, you'd be harping on the need to totally dismantle a bunch of federal agencies, beginning with the Dept. of Education.
 
Last edited:
Jun 18, 2010
15,178
2,044
743
Where else but Stillwater
#69
NYC has a larger population than 38 states. LA has a larger population than 23 states. I don't think it's healthy for individual cities to have more influence in our presidential election than half of the states in our country. IMO, the electoral college is a good thing because of this.

It would be really interesting to see how the process of campaigning would change if the presidential election was opened up to popular vote. Both sides have states they completely ignore because they know they can't win them.I know a lot of people that never vote because they know our state will vote for the republican candidate. A lot of things would change if we did away with the electoral college.
The campaigning locations wouldn't be much different. They would continue to focus on states that have been historically close, or recently close in the popular vote, such as Ohio.

If only Bush II wasn't such a bad president, I could come closer to keeping the Electoral College. The jury is still out on Trump.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2004
17,598
7,897
1,743
Earth
#70
LOL, you just don't trust that enough people would vote conservative or Republican. For all I know, Bush II is one of your favorite presidents.
I don't speak for him, but it's more that we don't trust certain states to only let citizens vote...and then only once. Plus we aren't a true Democracy but a Republic, and were founded as such.
 
Jun 18, 2010
15,178
2,044
743
Where else but Stillwater
#71
Getting rid of the electoral college would double voter turnout. The electoral college does more to silence voters than anything now. Had it’s purpose but it’s time has passed.
Finding much more decent and better Republicans, Democrats, and third party candidates to run for U. S. president would serve the country even better than getting rid of the Electoral College.

If Congress goes Democrat in November, that will be a sign Trump has been a bad president, leading to his impeachment. And it sure won't make keeping the Electoral College more popular.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,745
30,259
1,743
Australia
#72
Dropping the electoral college would be the end of America as we know it.

Think of how many freedoms you would have lost if Al ‘my feet are hot’ Gore and Crooked Hillary Clinton had been elected.
What freedoms would we have lost?
The biggest loss of freedom that I can think of recently is the Patriot Act. That probably would not have changed.
 
Oct 30, 2007
2,413
2,208
1,743
#73
The campaigning locations wouldn't be much different. They would continue to focus on states that have been historically close, or recently close in the popular vote, such as Ohio.

If only Bush II wasn't such a bad president, I could come closer to keeping the Electoral College. The jury is still out on Trump.
I think it would change things quite a bit if we went to popular vote. You would see a huge emphasis placed on heavily populated states. Republicans would be campaigning hard in states like California & New York. Maximizing votes in these states could become as important as winning the swing states.

You wold also see a lot more money spent on advertising. Traditionally red or blue states tend to get ignored by the opposing party because they know they're wasting their time. You wouldn't see that if every vote counted. I'm sure Oklahoma would see a large increase in advertising from the Democratic party if it every happened.
 
Oct 15, 2003
13,771
2,027
1,743
So Cal
#75
Getting rid of the electoral college would double voter turnout. The electoral college does more to silence voters than anything now. Had it’s purpose but it’s time has passed.
It's purpose remains the same, and has not changed. What has changed is the lack of education on the subject by people that were never intended to be able to vote.

There would not be a constitution, nor a Republic, if not for this measure to protect the smaller States from being railroaded by the larger States. It was true then, and it is true now.
 
Oct 15, 2003
13,771
2,027
1,743
So Cal
#76
LOL, you just don't trust that enough people would vote conservative or Republican. For all I know, Bush II is one of your favorite presidents.
why do every one of your posts have to do with you telling me what I know and and what I trust in?

My opinion on the subject, same as the framers, has nothing to do with WHO is elected, and everything to do with protection of the voices of the smaller States from mob rule.

The whole point of the electoral college was to PREVENT exactly what you are proposing.

Thank God that it has worked so far.
 
Oct 15, 2003
13,771
2,027
1,743
So Cal
#77
Really, all what you're talking about is that Federalism at the presidential election level has the potential to award the minority of voters the winning voice. The result is the country is still deeply divided. The closer the vote the more divided down the middle the country is. You worry to death about mob rule, but how do you think the majority feels about getting their voice snuffed over who the president should be? But for now as long as conservatives are the winning minority voice every time the Electoral College allows it, it will continue to go on. So keep being happy, will ya. It takes both Republicans and Democrats to know what it's like to lose even though they won the popular vote. The shoe being on the other foot may not even happen in your lifetime.

Seriously, California Cowboy, if you're really serious about freedom from central government, you'd be harping on the need to totally dismantle a bunch of federal agencies, beginning with the Dept. of Education.
What I am talking about is what James Madison and the rest were talking about - avoiding mob rule and giving voice to the STATES to govern themselves.

Your proposal is akin to letting CA, NY, FL, TX and IL vote, and everybody can save themselves the trouble and stay home. That is not how Federalism works.

I am really serious about freedom from central government (as were ALL OF THE STATES of the Confederacy), and I am in favor of totally dismantling a bunch of the federal agencies, beginning with the Dept. of Education.

Popular vote is Democracy. Democracy is anarchy.

come up with a real solution that considers the rights of the Smaller States.
 
Oct 15, 2003
13,771
2,027
1,743
So Cal
#78
What freedoms would we have lost?
The biggest loss of freedom that I can think of recently is the Patriot Act. That probably would not have changed.
The original Patriot Act was intended to be a temporary measure and had sunset dates, and had less to do with freedom and more to do with right to privacy. It is bad though.

The biggest loss of freedom however is taxes and debt, they keep extending the amount of time that I must work FOR THEM, instead of having the freedom to work for myself.

Then there is common core (or no child left behind), BLM laws, EPA restrictions on streams, property and vehicles (or gasp, cow fart tax).... and on, and on, and on... there is practically no limit on the amount of freedom that we have lost, and continue to lose.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,283
20,803
1,743
#79
It's purpose remains the same, and has not changed. What has changed is the lack of education on the subject by people that were never intended to be able to vote.

There would not be a constitution, nor a Republic, if not for this measure to protect the smaller States from being railroaded by the larger States. It was true then, and it is true now.
The way the college weighs the electorate they still do. All it does it keep a conservative from voting in Mass or a liberal in Texas.