20 States don't get to tell the other 30 what to do, that doesn't make sense to you. Figures.
Here you are failing at trying to explain why Electoral College is good.
Huh? No state has the right to tell another state what to do.
Your bubble is filled with hot air.
Here I am completely deflating your nonsense.
Why should the whole country be governed by the bible thumpers and rednecks that elected Trump?
Here I am giving the inverse argument you provided earlier, equally as accurate.
Then why do you pretend to not understand the EC is a layer of protection from Democracy? Does the Senate not make sense to you as well?
You've been running around for days proclaiming HRC won the popular vote and stating your disdain for the EC. The difference in the popular vote between the candidates nationwide won't even exceed the difference just in California.
Here you are attempting to detract from the argument and avoid the topic at hand, managing to avoid the question.
That is quite a leap in logic.
How does the Electoral College serve as a layer of protection 'from' Democracy?
HRC, when it is all accounted for, will have far more than 1,000,000 MORE votes than Drumpf. Who cares if it exceeds the number of votes in California? The point being is, 1,000,000 MORE American citizens prefer HRC over Drumpf to lead our country.
Here I am stating your leap in logic and further showing what an impact popular vote has over Electoral College. You simply chose to ignore it.
Well, I will start at the beginning for you.
Article II, Section 1, states, "Each State shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed as an Elector."
The Congress is split with House and Senate for this reason as well. The reason? Bingo, you got it, layer of protection from Democracy.
The original EC was designed so that no candidate of the lot got the majority of votes. They simply took the candidate with the most votes as President, the candidate with the 2nd most votes as VP.
It's very lulzy that the current elections results under the original pre-ammendments EC would yield Trump as President and Clinton as Vice.
1,000,000 more Americans ivoted for Hillary in States that went to Hillary already should change the election outcome is your argument. An intelligent conversation might not be possible with logic like that.
Here is your first attempt to support your initial shit-brained statement. Never actually answer the question, why do you think Electoral College is the right way to elect a President? You still haven't answered the question. And here is where you state that Electoral College is a "layer of protection FROM Democracy". Jesus you are fucking stupid.
I'm aware of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. However, I'm still unclear how it, the House and the Senate are layers of protection "from" Democracy. You'll need to explain that.
I don't see how popular vote is a failure in logic. It seems to me that be the most logical way of electing someone in a true Democracy. And I find it baffling you are not able to grasp that.
Imagine sitting in a room with 10 of your close friends, so there is 11 of you in the room. And among you, you decide that one needs to be the leader of the group. How would you decide? Would you have everyone in the room provide a show of hands who is to be elected? Or would you separate some from the others because they may live closer to one another? And then have them decide among their small group who gets to cast a vote for the leader? Logic precludes the former to be more accurate.
We have 330,000,000 citizens in the United States. Of those who were able to vote, 1,000,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Why are those 1,000,000 not counted?
Here I am, explaining in my own thoughts why popular vote makes sense. I even made it very simple for you to understand. Yet, here we are with you still not grasping it. Figures.
There ya go. Conversation rendered completely pointless.
Here you completely avoiding the debate because you know you're wrong and you know you're incapable of explaining why Electoral College is correct means of electing a President. You're being lazy.
The statement that keeps on giving, tried but just couldn't resist.
And again, attempting to end the debate because you know you are wrong.
You're a snide little prick aren't you? Ok. I'll treat you as such.
So by your own logic, what is law, is law. So then I assume you are against the repeal of Obamacare. Because after all, a law is a law.
Missing a word in a sentence is completely different than not knowing how to spell a word. And I'm the first to admit if I misuse a word, and when people point it out I'm happy to acknowledge it.
I'm sorry that you're either too fucking stupid or too fucking ignorant to see the logic in a popular vote. And I'm equally unsurprised that you're incapable of explaining why an Electoral College is logical. How about you try explaining it? Smartass.
Here I am pointing out how much of a shit-stick you are, and again asking you to explain Electoral College to me.
Thanks for explaining my logic daddy, Law is Law and law is pertaining to a society. It goes on and on but do pretend 11 guys voting on who's beer bitch in a frat house is the best system to preserve Natural Rights in a Republic. Your ignorance on certain issues is astounding sometimes but thanks for being with me on Arms Rights.
This is not computer programming. Missing a word and misspelling are the same. I have already explained why the Electoral College is one of many necessary layers for protection against Democracy. Now its on you to justify otherwise.
Your only smug, pricked, jizz soaked comeback so far is that a true democratic popular election is the best process in a true Democratic federal government. Which is ignorant as fuck.
And once again, you manage to avoid the topic at hand and focus on meaningless bullshit. You then try to say you've explained Electoral College, which is a complete contradiction to what's been said in the thread so far.
Missing a word is the same as misspelling a word? You are literally, retarded.
Ah, I see, you prefer not to have a Democracy, as you continue to use words like, protection FROM Democracy and protection AGAINST Democracy.
Thank you for proving my point. Electoral College is not a means of supporting a Democracy, but rather a means against it.
Nevermind your obsession with jizz, this thought makes no sense whatsoever. "A true democratic popular election is the best process in a true Democratic federal government", is literally the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And you've said some really dumb shit thus far.
And here I am putting the final nail in your coffin. Using your own words, concluded that you think Electoral College is NOT a means of fairly or democratically electing a President.
Literally, I was the one who made that point. You are about as useful as tits on a Bull with the wit of said boob to match.
Here you are crying like a little bitch.
So we are in agreement. Electoral College should be removed and we decide on a popular vote.
Glad we settled that argument. Now that wasn't so difficult, was it?
And here I am, like an adult would, settled the matter maturely.
Epitome of dumb. You seem triggered, is your meltdown imminent?
Ohh, how middle school. We shall pencil fight to decide.
And finally, here you are handling it like a fucking child.
The matter is settled. You think Electoral College is good because it is not a means of democratically electing a President.
