The electoral college

Yep, democracy is out the window again this election. It's all about who gets 271 electoral votes. Supposedly, it's Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, and Florida that will decide the next POTUS. Which state will send the election to the SCOTUS, with votes thrown in the trash? Will the SCOTUS anoint another con as Furor? Imagine the SCOTUS replacing the president of the United States.

 

The next POTUS will be determined by the electoral college, and nobody cares but me. Really? Is it any wonder?

 

I agree it is stupid. It got Bush elected in 2000. It will get Obama elected in 2012.

 

At least Obama will win the popular vote. The electoral college is the only way cons can get the White House.

 

You're upset about the electoral college?

You're about 225 years too late on that matter. The Elec. College was introduced in the Constitution to protect smaller states and balance representation.

That's why we're a Representative Democracy, not Direct Democracy.

 

The electoral college is just fine so long as GOP mouthpieces get installed. Just ask them.

 

Not the only way....they can do like they did in Ohio during the Bush installation....just hack the voter software and plug in your own numbers, then get daddy to call his buddies on the high court to stop the physical counting of votes.

 

Oh look! *******s whining about the electoral college! Who else is surprised? The one institution specifically designed to give each state a voice and the *******s want to silence it in favor of allowing the major metropolitan areas decide every election. How utterly dishonest and disgusting of them. Not that I am surprised. They only whine about voter disenfranchisement when they believe it is liberals being disinfrachised. According to them, everyone else should be silenced.

 

Romney is predicted to win the popular vote this election. If he doesn't win the electoral vote I wonder if the Republicans will trot out thousands of lawyers to try to sue him into the White House like the Dems did with Bush?

 

The Democratic Party openly supports voting fraud by allowing illegal immigrants to cast votes. The electoral college helps with the issue, because illegals only disenfranchise voters of their state so the effect on the election is kept to a minimum. I know the Democrats may think it is a bad thing as it is their goal to win the election by any means necessary even if it means fraudulently, but for people with some decency, the electoral college tries to keep politics at bay from election results as much as it can. Weather I agree with the college myself is another issue and I am not taking sides, but this is just a point.

 

Well...DIEBOLD is now "Premiere Election Systems" (last I heard anyway). Will they be in charge of voting results again? If so, then there's a strong possibility they'll fudge the numbers like they did with Bush. Lawyers? Depends, I guess, on how well they hide their hacking this time.

 

From the con posts, you can really tell they depend on it to override REAL democracy. Cons will be cons.

 

You've got it backwards. Romney has the popular vote (though not by much), but Obama has the EC and, by extension, a second term.

 

It is physically impossible for the major metropolitan areas to decide the election in a popular vote system.

Of course, your contention also falls apart in that a popular vote system would actually make Mitt Romney, not Barack Obama, the next President. The EC guarantees Obama a second term, unless Romney pulls off a miracle and somehow takes Obama's easy EC win...which, at this stage, can only happen by a miracle.

So if liberals support the popular vote to get liberals elected...

 

It's actually been proven that illegals affect the EC more than the popular vote.

 

If we switch to a popular vote then the liberals will be the first ones whining as soon as the popular vote goes for a republican.

All they really want is to manipulate the system any way possible to get their guy into office.

 

I am a liberal, and that is absolutely untrue. I despise Romney, and though I'm not voting for Obama, I find four more years of Obama preferable to even one of Romney.

But I'm advocating for a popular vote system, which would make Romney our next President. You know why? Because I'm actually an honest person and do not vote/support my own self-interest.

 

How do you justify the fact that the popular vote will disenfranchise voters in low populated areas such as Alaska or Wyoming?

 

It won't. It will actually make their votes worth something and may actually get the other 70-80% of the country that is disenfranchised by the EC to vote.

 

That makes no sense. If Alaska didn't vote in a popular vote scenario or they all voted for the same candidate it wouldn't make a difference. Their population is not that high to even overcome the city of Los Angelos. And this, by the way, is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court so you will never see a popular vote for President.

This ruling as clarified by the majority opinion states that the government must do whatever they can to make sure that every persons vote has the same amount of representation or as close to equal as they can possibly get it. Therefore a person in Alaska would not have the same representation as a person in LA or California so it would be unconstitutional. You would need to amend the Constitution and the States would never sign onto that.

You will never see a popular vote for President in this country.

 

Statistically speaking, it is impossible for any metropolitan area or any state to decide elections. Period. It's mathematically retarded to suggest otherwise. Our population is spread out well enough to prevent that.

Ironically, it's the EC that actually makes it where certain states (small ones usually) decide elections.

And yes, one day we will see a popular vote for President.

Factually incorrect. A person in Alaska has just as much vote representation as a person in L.A., because in a popular vote system votes are not tallied by states or localities, they are tallied by individuals. An Alaskan voter's vote for Romney counts just as much as a vote for Romney or any other candidate in L.A.

 

I respect the honesty and fact that you would be willing to have Romney as president in the name of a better cause. I understand that.

However, why would you find 4 more years of Obama preferable? The lies and scandals of Libya and Fast/Furious is not enough for you? Or perhaps the failed stimulus that did *create* jobs, but there are multiple cases where workers simply come to work and do nothing like with GM's electric car plant with stories released just days ago. The amount of people who are out of work is much higher than before, and its been so long that they stop looking for work or their benefits run out which causes the unemployment rate to seemingly climb down. He refused to allow lots of drilling in the United States and instead South America ended up doing the drilling. He wastes billions on green jobs that get us nowhere when we can DRILL here and now for garenteed job growth.

Let me ask you something and I'd like an honest answer.

In real life, in your house, IF your kitchen is on fire would you try to remodel your dining room? Or would you put the fire out in the kitchen first, fix it up, and THEN remodel the dining room?

This is an analogy to the green job debate. When we can easily hire hundreds of thousands if not millions of people instantly as well as bring gas prices much lower by allowing drilling stateside, why spend BILLIONS on green jobs only to lose it on companies like Solyndra's.

So on election day here are your choices:

Candidate A (Romney): You DO NOT KNOW how good he will be. Romney may make the economy 10x worse than it is now. He might make it 10x better. Nobody really knows and its a risk to choose him.

or

Candidate B (Obama): You 100% KNOW that the economy will be worse, that jobs will go down, that gas prices will go up, and the country will continue to struggle.

So you are picking between a risk and a definite downfall. Who will you pick?

Literally, the amount of lost investment and waste of money that Obama has spent, it would be CHEAPER to just straight-up GIVE people money, like lets say 100,000k per person. Its cheaper to just give out money rather then investment.

 

I know 100% that Romney destroyed peoples jobs with corporate takeovers, running Bain Capital. I know that he sent millions of our jobs to China. I know that his plan is to broaden the tax base by taxing the poor and lowering taxes on the rich. I know he plans to destroy Social Security and Medicare, causing millions of elderly to suffer and be thrown out in the street. I know he plans to destroy healthcare for all but the rich, which will undoubtedly cause infectious pandemics. I know he plans to destroy welfare, which will add millions to the unemployment lines. I know he plans on destroying planned parenthood, which will cause millions of women to lose contraception, which will lead to millions more unwanted children. I know he plans on banning abortion, which will make thousands of rape victims have children that shouldn't be brought into this world. And I know Romney plans on starting WWIII, by bombing Iran, which will add at least $20 trillion to the national debt.

Obama looks like a saint compared to Romney. If the cons hadn't destroyed the economy under Shrubs rule, Obama wouldn't have become POTUS. And if the cons hadn't nominated the antichrist, Obama wouldn't be reelected.

 

It was designed that way. Our much glorified founding fathers thought it would be the best way to guarantee that the wealthy elites keep control of the uneducated masses. It's kind of like psssssing down someone's back and having them believe you're giving them a glass of water.

BTW...I wholeheartedly agree with your post.

 

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so I can't address everything you said. I'll just focus on answering your conclusion.

The simple fact is, from an unbiased perspective (not saying yours isn't), we DON'T know that the economy will continue to get worse. For all we know, we'll hit another magic boom like the Dot Com boom, or maybe without having to worry about another election the President and Congress will actually work together for a change and things will approve.

But you're right, even if we could say for certain that the economy will continue to get worse, we still know what to expect from Obama. We have no idea with Romney. Romney can't even make up his mind as to what he believes.

To me, Obama just seems like a safer investment. *shrug* Better the devil you know, they say.