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
#81
To have the minority win when presidential elections are close is NOT the purpose of the electoral college.
That true. But the Electoral College has no practical modern day purpose. The law passed that only allows a president to serve just two terms has done this country more good than the Electoral College. If Trump keeps winning and never resigns, many of us will be very thankful for that law.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
#82
That true. But the Electoral College has no practical modern day purpose. The law passed that only allows a president to serve just two terms has done this country more good than the Electoral College. If Trump keeps winning and never resigns, many of us will be very thankful for that law.
Hillary had more votes but she didn't carry the majority of the vote. She was only at 48.2%. If you're going to go full democracy, you'll have to have a runoff so that one candidate gets more than 50% of the votes. The 4.5 million votes that went to the Libertarian party could've gone to Trump and he would've won anyway. Also, in that case, Slick Willy loses to GHWB. Maybe your idea isn't so good afterall.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,691
2,172
743
Where else but Stillwater
#85
The founding fathers had such crystal clear and timeless vision. Just amazing foresight.
So very, very true for now, if you love President Trump. But I'll sure give the founding fathers credit for feeling that they may not be proven right as time went on after their deaths, so they made a plan as to how changes to the Constitution could be made. For instance, their plan to only let the state legislatures select the two senators didn't turn out well.
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,691
2,172
743
Where else but Stillwater
#86
“But the Electoral College has no practical modern day purpose.“

WRONG!
LOL, Of course, it's wrong it you love President Trump and also loved President Bush II.

Once again, make no doubt about it, whatsoever, the Electoral College has no practical modern day purpose. But I predict Republicans, no doubt, will be in very quite passionate support of keeping it for only as long as Republicans continue winning the Electoral College when the popular vote doesn't go their way. That's why I would say to Democrats to be careful of what you wish for. Maybe your turn to winning the Electoral College when losing the popular vote is coming your way soon.

 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,649
23,965
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#88
That true. But the Electoral College has no practical modern day purpose. The law passed that only allows a president to serve just two terms has done this country more good than the Electoral College. If Trump keeps winning and never resigns, many of us will be very thankful for that law.
Townie, why do YOU Think the Democrat party still chooses to have their presidential primary use state delegates instead of popular vote? This is something the Dems could change if they wanted to but they DON'T want to. Maybe if you criticized the Dem primary as loudly as you criticize the actual election, you wouldn't sound so much like a partisan sheep toeing the party line. I notice Colorado only pledged their EV's to the popular vote winner, they didn't do the same with their state delegates. Lead by example Democrats if you truly feel so strongly about it.

There would be no United States of America as we know it without the EC because the lower population states would have never joined. You want to retroactively go back on the "compromise" (I know that's a strange word for you but look it up) that was made all those years ago, then fine, but you've also got to give the lower population states the option of gong back on the deal they made when that compromise was in place.
 
Last edited:

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
6,888
5,973
1,743
31
Keller, Texas
#89
For anyone saying the electoral college is antiquated then you obviously don't know its purpose. It was DESIGNED so that we aren't mob rule. That the Flyover states had equal representation and the major cities didn't rule the country with an iron fist. Hillary lost because she neglected states that she thought were a 'given' that she would win.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,141
5,147
1,743
Katy, TX
#90
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?
Nixon nearly doubled McGovern in the popular vote.
He gained 16 mil votes over his total in 1968.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,691
2,172
743
Where else but Stillwater
#91
For anyone saying the electoral college is antiquated then you obviously don't know its purpose. It was DESIGNED so that we aren't mob rule. That the Flyover states had equal representation and the major cities didn't rule the country with an iron fist. Hillary lost because she neglected states that she thought were a 'given' that she would win.
Nevertheless, it's still quite antiquated and serves little practical purpose. No way can you possibly deny that most every time the winner of the presidential election won both the Electoral College and the popular vote. Or do you pretty strongly think that the country would have been in great trouble from the mob rule that Gore and Hillary Clinton would be sure to bring on?
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
6,888
5,973
1,743
31
Keller, Texas
#92
Nevertheless, it's still quite antiquated and serves little practical purpose. No way can you possibly deny that most every time the winner of the presidential election won both the Electoral College and the popular vote. Or do you pretty strongly think that the country would have been in great trouble from the mob rule that Gore and Hillary Clinton would be sure to bring on?
But not every time, correct? I do think we would me MUCH worse off if Al 'my feet are hot' Gore or another clinton was in office.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,691
2,172
743
Where else but Stillwater
#93
Townie, why do YOU Think the Democrat party still chooses to have their presidential primary use state delegates instead of popular vote? This is something the Dems could change if they wanted to but they DON'T want to. Maybe if you criticized the Dem primary as loudly as you criticize the actual election, you wouldn't sound so much like a partisan sheep toeing the party line. I notice Colorado only pledged their EV's to the popular vote winner, they didn't do the same with their state delegates. Lead by example Democrats if you truly feel so strongly about it.

There would be no United States of America as we know it without the EC because the lower population states would have never joined. You want to retroactively go back on the "compromise" (I know that's a strange word for you but look it up) that was made all those years ago, then fine, but you've also got to give the lower population states the option of gong back on the deal they made when that compromise was in place.
After what happened the Democrats, without a doubt, proved to be pretty damned stupid and should change their ways. Keeping the EC is also no doubt toeing the Republican Party line, because the EC is working like a charm for them. So why not passionately advocate keeping it?

Times change. The lower populated states may want to get rid of the EC so presidential candidates will come campaign. For now the presidential campaigns are generally limited to 12-15 swing states. The majority of them are not small ones.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,974
6,695
1,743
Yukon, OK
#94
After what happened the Democrats, without a doubt, proved to be pretty damned stupid and should change their ways. Keeping the EC is also no doubt toeing the Republican Party line, because the EC is working like a charm for them. So why not passionately advocate keeping it?

Times change. The lower populated states may want to get rid of the EC so presidential candidates will come campaign. For now the presidential campaigns are generally limited to 12-15 swing states. The majority of them are not small ones.
I'm sorry, but what kind of lunatic logic did you use to come up with this idea??? This literally has to be one of the stupidest things I've seen you say...
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,649
23,965
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#95
doubt toeing the Republican Party line,
I'm toeing the founders line. The Republican establishment may very well change their tune if the situation was reversed....I won't.


The lower populated states may want to get rid of the EC so presidential candidates will come campaign. For now the presidential campaigns are generally limited to 12-15 swing states. The majority of them are not small ones.
Try doing some math. Getting rid of the EC will make those small states even less important to visit than they already are. States like Oklahoma would be all but meaningless in the overall picture. I guess it would mean fewer campaign ads that we have to sit through...that would be a bonus.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,120
2,556
1,743
So Cal
#96
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.
but... but...but... that was NOT THE POINT. I SAID, that the small States CAN ban together and not get run over by the larger States (if needed), and if desired by them.

You chose 1960 for some bizarre unknown reason, a race in which the President won the electorate vote and got a MAJORITY in the popular vote. (not a plurality, but actually got the majority)

The creation and inclusion of the electoral college in the Constitution received the least debate and discussion, and was widely considered to be ingenious. (and is still considered so to this day).
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,120
2,556
1,743
So Cal
#97
That true. But the Electoral College has no practical modern day purpose. The law passed that only allows a president to serve just two terms has done this country more good than the Electoral College. If Trump keeps winning and never resigns, many of us will be very thankful for that law.
I already explained the purpose of the EC, over and over and over, and it retains the exact same purpose of it's original creation. The 2-term law has nothing to do with the EC, nor the disparity of population of States..

I'm with ocasio-cortez on this one... good thing the democrats passed that law so that FDR could not run for office AGAIN. (as if he lived in Chicago).

That was a stupid condition when it was passed and it's still stupid - although I am grateful that we don't have to suffer through another chronic episode of King Barack. I think Trump could have beaten King BO though.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,120
2,556
1,743
So Cal
#99
Nevertheless, it's still quite antiquated and serves little practical purpose. No way can you possibly deny that most every time the winner of the presidential election won both the Electoral College and the popular vote. Or do you pretty strongly think that the country would have been in great trouble from the mob rule that Gore and Hillary Clinton would be sure to bring on?
I think the number is 5 times. Five times a president was elected without getting the plurality of popular vote - which in layman's terms is..... 5 times that the process worked correctly, and your anarchy approach would have messed up the election.

You should be celebrating those 5 times as evidence that the EC process actually works as intended.