Things that should happen now that the Mueller Investigation is over

  • 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.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,691
2,172
743
Where else but Stillwater
#61
That's right. The nine largest cities would be in charge and everybody else in the country would be beholden to them. People who wanted to get elected president would have to cater to those cities at the expense of the rest of the country. None of those cities are in Oklahoma.....the state of Oklahoma and everybody living here (including you) LOSE if we abolish the electoral college. You may be just fine with people in New York and Los Angeles telling you how to live your life because you agree with them, but don't be so naive as to think you'll always agree with them or that your children/grandchildren will.
In other words, keep the Electoral College, so the more rural less urban states can sometimes rule over 9 cities when those 9 cities lose the popular vote. No doubt, you pretty strongly feel those 9 cities very much need ruled over by the smaller states because the smaller states can govern smarter? And maybe it would be a kinder tyranny.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,649
23,965
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#62
In other words, keep the Electoral College, so the more rural less urban states can sometimes rule over 9 cities when those 9 cities lose the popular vote. No doubt, you pretty strongly feel those 9 cities very much need ruled over by the smaller states because the smaller states can govern smarter? And maybe it would be a kinder tyranny.
What the hell are you talking about, the states with those 9 cities already have a huge advantage in EVs. The EC is still skewed in their favor, just not as much as the popular vote would be.
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
6,888
5,973
1,743
31
Keller, Texas
#63
In other words, keep the Electoral College, so the more rural less urban states can sometimes rule over 9 cities when those 9 cities lose the popular vote. No doubt, you pretty strongly feel those 9 cities very much need ruled over by the smaller states because the smaller states can govern smarter? And maybe it would be a kinder tyranny.
This is the dumbest thing i've read in a LONG time from Townie. and that's saying something. Those 9 cities could dominate all the rural STATES if they voted the same way. Thankfully Texas is still Red though.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,126
2,556
1,743
So Cal
#64
In other words, keep the Electoral College, so the more rural less urban states can sometimes rule over 9 cities when those 9 cities lose the popular vote. No doubt, you pretty strongly feel those 9 cities very much need ruled over by the smaller states because the smaller states can govern smarter? And maybe it would be a kinder tyranny.
dude..... we've covered this over 10 times already.

The STATES have rights (all of the States - even the Small States). The more populous States are NOT supposed to be able to run roughshod over the others.... that is the whole point.

The small states (Rhode Island, etc.) would never have ratified the Constitution without this provision and the States appointing Senators provisions.

Never would have passed... no Constitution... no Republic.

The Smaller States are supposed to be able to band together, if desired, to fend off the popular whims of the larger States.

That is the basics of the mechanics of the Constitution, and our INDIVIDUAL liberty.

This is about liberty, not about smarter or dumber. The opposite of liberty is tyranny.

Your intentional ignorance on this subject is absolutely infuriating at times.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,691
2,172
743
Where else but Stillwater
#65
dude..... we've covered this over 10 times already.

The STATES have rights (all of the States - even the Small States). The more populous States are NOT supposed to be able to run roughshod over the others.... that is the whole point.

The small states (Rhode Island, etc.) would never have ratified the Constitution without this provision and the States appointing Senators provisions.

Never would have passed... no Constitution... no Republic.

The Smaller States are supposed to be able to band together, if desired, to fend off the popular whims of the larger States.

That is the basics of the mechanics of the Constitution, and our INDIVIDUAL liberty.

This is about liberty, not about smarter or dumber. The opposite of liberty is tyranny.

Your intentional ignorance on this subject is absolutely infuriating at times.
Tell me something. Do you not realize they're were a lot of small states that voted for Nixon in 1960? In fact, most of the western half of the country went for Nixon. So don't look silly giving me this myth that the Electoral College is not suppose to let the more populous votes run roughshod over the small ones, such as with close popular vote elections. Except for California and Ohio, the biggest states chose Kennedy. Of course, Kennedy also won the popular vote as is usually the case with presidential elections.

You worry about tyranny, so what do you call it when Nixon won reelection by 520 to 17 Electoral College votes? Tyranny or simply a more united than usual United States?

There is no need to worry about tyranny from getting rid of the Electoral College. Congress prevented tyrannical power from getting well established by passing an Amendment allowing the president to serve only two terms. That is one reason why the Electoral College is without a doubt obsolete. Ultimately, it's up to the states to decide if that is true for these modern times. If you don't agree with me, then I can only take pity out on you as a human being. Some people worship statism. You worship the Constitution.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,126
2,556
1,743
So Cal
#68
Tell me something. Do you not realize they're were a lot of small states that voted for Nixon in 1960? In fact, most of the western half of the country went for Nixon. So don't look silly giving me this myth that the Electoral College is not suppose to let the more populous votes run roughshod over the small ones, such as with close popular vote elections. Except for California and Ohio, the biggest states chose Kennedy. Of course, Kennedy also won the popular vote as is usually the case with presidential elections.

You worry about tyranny, so what do you call it when Nixon won reelection by 520 to 17 Electoral College votes? Tyranny or simply a more united than usual United States?

There is no need to worry about tyranny from getting rid of the Electoral College. Congress prevented tyrannical power from getting well established by passing an Amendment allowing the president to serve only two terms. That is one reason why the Electoral College is without a doubt obsolete. Ultimately, it's up to the states to decide if that is true for these modern times. If you don't agree with me, then I can only take pity out on you as a human being. Some people worship statism. You worship the Constitution.
why do you choose ignorance and intentional lying? You call it a MYTH, yet you provide no evidence to support your allegation. You deny the truth. You run from the truth. You hide from the truth.

The presidential limit has nothing to do with the discussion when the liberal large cities elect democrat (marxist) after marxist, despite the wishes of the other peoples represented.

Here - this is the explanation of the process, as discussed by the creators of the Constitution.

They even list the "dangers" that could happen, which by no coincidence are many of the same ideas that you promote.

Federalist 10:

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS.
 
Apr 14, 2009
68
23
1,558
#69
why do you choose ignorance and intentional lying? You call it a MYTH, yet you provide no evidence to support your allegation. You deny the truth. You run from the truth. You hide from the truth.

The presidential limit has nothing to do with the discussion when the liberal large cities elect democrat (marxist) after marxist, despite the wishes of the other peoples represented.

Here - this is the explanation of the process, as discussed by the creators of the Constitution.

They even list the "dangers" that could happen, which by no coincidence are many of the same ideas that you promote.

Federalist 10:

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS.
Pure Poop.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,691
2,172
743
Where else but Stillwater
#70
Yet, after all of that not one word of defense for keeping the Electoral College. Surely he has heard of consent of the governed. It is based on the shared understanding that whoever gets the most votes wins the election. That basis helps explain why Americans when polled have favored doing away with the Electoral College for many decades.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,126
2,556
1,743
So Cal
#72
Yet, after all of that not one word of defense for keeping the Electoral College. Surely he has heard of consent of the governed. It is based on the shared understanding that whoever gets the most votes wins the election. That basis helps explain why Americans when polled have favored doing away with the Electoral College for many decades.
actually, Hamilton defended it in Federalist 10... which I did list.

what's the matter with you?
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,691
2,172
743
Where else but Stillwater
#74
actually, Hamilton defended it in Federalist 10... which I did list.

what's the matter with you?
The Constitution was written in the late 1700s. As time went on, the intent of the Electoral College didn't work in one highly glaring case. As was already pointed out to you in the 1960 presidential election the largest states, except for California and Ohio, prevailed over the smaller ones. So please change your mind and start advocating for doing away with the Electoral College. It is antiquated and as you pointed out only needed at the start of the nation to get the small states to go along with the Constitution. Don't have blind faith that the writers of the Constitution always got it right or included every vital point. Even they could look into the future and see it themselves . So today the Ten Amendments are now up to 27.

No doubt, the only downside is that the Democrats would have won had the Electoral College still be in place. Democrats, be careful of what you wish for.

If you're still backward enough to support continuing the Electoral College, then better hope that Trump won't have to resign before his first term is over. As a result, an even bigger majority of the people will see the Electoral College isn't worth keeping.
 
Last edited:

Brad M

Wrangler
Jan 16, 2017
106
98
78
55
Wisconsin
#75
The electoral college is brilliant in its design. The first step to understanding it is to realize that we’re a republic and not a democracy. You can have a democracy at the state level but we are a republic at the national level.

IMHO, our educational system doesn’t do a good enough job of teaching the workings and logic of how our govt is supposed to work. They are too caught up in making students memorize specific dates. I think the vast majority of our educators don’t grasp the logic behind our governmental system and as a result enough generations have gone through the broken system to cause our country to go into a death spiral.
The grandchildren and great grandchildren of the idiots of today will curse their grandparents and great grandparents for allowing it to happen.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
#76
So that was written in the late 1700s. As time went on, the intent of the Electoral College didn't work in one highly glaring case. As was already pointed out to you in the 1960 presidential election the largest states, except for California and Ohio, prevailed over the smaller ones. So please change your mind and start advocating for doing away with the Electoral College. It is antiquated and as you pointed out only needed at the start of the nation to get the small states to go along with the Constitution. Don't have blind faith that the writers of the Constitution always got it right or included every vital point. Even they could look into the future and see it themselves . So today the Ten Amendments are now up to 27.

No doubt, the only downside is that the Democrats would have won had the Electoral College still be in place. Democrats, be careful of what you wish for.

If you're still backward enough to support continuing the Electoral College, then better hope that Trump won't have to resign before his first term is over. As a result, an even bigger majority of the people will see the Electoral College isn't worth keeping.


You do realize that Kennedy won the popular vote AND electoral college, don't you????????????? You should also realize that you're just pissin' in the wind with your moronic comments on the electoral college. It would require an amendment to the constitution so it AIN'T happenin'. Try whining about something else.

1554659058619.png
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,691
2,172
743
Where else but Stillwater
#77
You do realize that Kennedy won the popular vote AND electoral college, don't you????????????? You should also realize that you're just pissin' in the wind with your moronic comments on the electoral college. It would require an amendment to the constitution so it AIN'T happenin'. Try whining about something else.

View attachment 69306
LOL, you just wasted your time. I already knew ALL the of what you pointed out. Otherwise, we'll just have to disagree to agree. But I do thank you for the map showing how the large states prevailed over the small states, except for California and Ohio.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
#78
LOL, you just wasted your time. I already knew ALL the of what you pointed out. Otherwise, we'll just have to disagree to agree. But I do thank you for the map showing how the large states prevailed over the small states, except for California and Ohio.
How do you think the 1960 should've turned out? You seem to trying to make a point about something that can't be made with your example. Try a little harder next time.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,691
2,172
743
Where else but Stillwater
#79
The electoral college is brilliant in its design. The first step to understanding it is to realize that we’re a republic and not a democracy. You can have a democracy at the state level but we are a republic at the national level.

IMHO, our educational system doesn’t do a good enough job of teaching the workings and logic of how our govt is supposed to work. They are too caught up in making students memorize specific dates. I think the vast majority of our educators don’t grasp the logic behind our governmental system and as a result enough generations have gone through the broken system to cause our country to go into a death spiral.
The grandchildren and great grandchildren of the idiots of today will curse their grandparents and great grandparents for allowing it to happen.
We are only a republic when it comes to electing the president. And became less of a republic when choosing senators were changed from the state legislature to popular vote. There is nothing brilliant in the Electoral College other than adopting it led to approval of the Constitution. For most presidential elections the Electoral College was irrelevant because its outcome was the same as the popular vote. If you believe the Electoral College should have the minority win when presidential races are close, it has proven not to work that way every time, such as the presidential election of 1960.

And, no, our country isn't going into a death spiral. That won't happen until economic conditions are so bad that the government can't come up with enough money to pay interest on its debt.
 
Last edited:

Brad M

Wrangler
Jan 16, 2017
106
98
78
55
Wisconsin
#80
We are only a republic when it comes to electing the president. And became less of a republic when choosing senators were changed from the state legislature to popular vote. There is nothing brilliant in the Electoral College other than adopting it led to approval of the Constitution. For most presidential elections the Electoral College was irrelevant because its outcome was the same as the popular vote. If you believe the Electoral College should have the minority win when presidential races are close, it has proven not to work that way every time, such as the presidential election of 1960.

And, no, our country isn't going into a death spiral. That won't happen until economic conditions are so bad that the government can't come up with enough money to pay interest on its debt.
To have the minority win when presidential elections are close is NOT the purpose of the electoral college.