How to win the electoral college with 22% of the popular vote

Ah I misunderstood. Though that can happen. But nation wide the electoral college has gone against the popular vote of the country 5% of the time.

 

I have not studied the other three circumstances, so I will not comment on them. I read an article from Nate Silver about the 2000 Election, and I agree with his conclusions. I think declaring Gore the winner by popular vote is not entirely honest, considering both candidates' strategy was to win the Electoral College. Having more contributions, and a better organized campaign would have allowed Bush to target more voters in all 50 states. Silver concludes by saying that the result of a popular election campaign would have been a toss-up.

 

You have a sick need for an omnipotent class of bullies to push you around. Everything you say is what you are told to say; you like being told what to say and to preach submission to the status quo. You also use the scare tactic of accepting it because any change somehow must be a change for the worse.

 

The fact that the Founding Fodder saw a need to have the power to play that card shows what contempt and fear they had for the will of the majority. They were elitist snobs, just like the hereditary British guillotine-fodder they replaced.

 

Look for my other posts in this thread. I agree with you.

 

Your entire post is premised on a straw-man.

 

Without the state, majority rule is powerless. So yes, you are a statist.

Not all of the candidates are pre-owned. Everybody has the power to not vote for pre-owned candidates.

And somehow you think that it's better for the orphaned child if he has to obey everything that all of the other children tell him to do? Obedience is the nature of the state.

"Tyranny of the majority > Tyranny of the Minority". That's like deciding whether it's better to shoot yourself in the head with a .50 desert eagle or a .44 magnum.

The American System puts both the majority and minority in power so they can keep a check on each other's brand of tyranny. All you're advocating is abolishing the minority's check on the majority. The only way to measure how much total harm is done is by looking at how much total harm is done to the individual - NOT how much harm is done to the collective (whether it's the collective minority or collective majority).

Those minority nine clowns in gowns with gavels were appointed by the President, who was executing the will of the majority because they voted for him. That's a check that the majority have on the minority. And this particular minority puts a check on the majority by throwing out laws that were passed by politicians who were elected by the majority.

The "majority" doesn't have rights because it's not a person. "Majority" is just a term used to describe an abstract group. Only the individual has rights, and it is the individual that has the right to not have force used against him by another individual.

Wrong. We as individuals have the power to vote for politicians who won't pander to the 1%. They are powerless without the muscle of the state working in their favor.

 

You are relying on massive brainwashing of the American people by globalists who can afford to do that. The Constitution and other Sacred Cows are made of straw, but they scare people whose 1%-controlled education has turned them into birdbrains.

The economic elite are proven cowards and far outnumbered, so only totalitarianism can explain the fact that they are still alive. By totalitarianism I don't mean what you want me to mean. The hereditary class dictatorship doesn't have to control what doesn't harm them. Also it does control a lot of what you try to make us believe it doesn't, such as Leftism. The Internet is controlled by the ruling class of thieves and traitors through their drumming laundry cycle of pre-brainwashing before people ever get on it and self-confidently babble ideas made of straw.

 

I've seen the results of direct democracy in my state. It makes for even more absurd laws than legislatures make. For example, here in FL, about ten years ago there was a rash of Constitutional amendments passed directly by the voters. They were disastrous and ill conceived for the most part. The first one was that there was a Constitutional amendment that made minimum sizes for pregnant pig enclosures. Something that should have been a law instead became a Constitutional amendment that could only be gotten rid of by a major vote. The second was a school class size amendment. The amendment limited class size, but did so without adjusting funding formulas, or even allowing any common sense exceptions. The results: 1) many studetns were taught by unqualified teachers, because there wasn't enough time to find enough qualified teachers to meet this requirement (and not enough qualified teachers applying). 2) schools were forced to hire a new teacher if, for example, their first grade had 5 classes and 81 students. According to the amendment, 16 was the limit for first grade. Instead of allowing one class with 17, they instead forced the school to hire a last minute teacher, and then put them in a portable classroom (due to not having enough classrooms in the building). and 3) advanced classes were gotten rid of in smaller high schools. If they couldn't fill them with 22 students (limit for high school), the schools stopped offering advanced classes for 10 students. The old law would have allowed a bit of overage in some classes, so that they could have smaller class sizes in other classes. New amendment passed by the people didn't allow that.

The real key is to term limit politicians, so that by the time they really know the system and can corrupt it, they are gone.

 

Got any proof of any of this or are you just making up bull(*)(*)(*)(*) as you go?

 

You are one of their straws. They hope that some free mind will pick you up and use you to suck up their Kool-Aid.

 

The first time, not the second.

 

Well, that does it. You convinced me.

 

Quite frankly it's a ridiculous system that should be abolished.

 

No!!!!

Popular vote cannot be trusted in a two-party system. That is called tyranny of the masses.

 

Please tell me you're being ironic.

 

Lincoln still got the popular vote, no one beat 39%. A popular vote doesn't need to be over 50% unless only 2 people get votes.

Quincy Adams is a good example.

 

I'm really not....

Trust me.. I'd love the popular vote because the Republicans would get their (*)(*)(*)(*) rocked. Unfortunately, the Republicans are also a balancing force to keep the Dems in check. With popular vote democracy.. there is no discussion. Majority rules.

 

That's how it works in Congress does it not?

The way the electoral college works is basically a half-assed compromise between the people picking the president and the states picking the president. As it stands, the electoral college is basically just the popular vote anyway, but with a small chance that the popular vote won't be reflected. And it's for an arbitrary reason. If the states all had, say, one vote towards who was president, then I'd deem it more fair. As it is, the weighting the states get feels like arbitrary bs. There's a reason people feel cheated when the popular vote doesn't elect the President - your system mostly reflects their wishes, but not always.

I honestly do not at all see what is wrong with a straight popular vote for the President, and all these people on this forum that keep insisting it protects states' rights don't make any sense to me. The President can't order the states' around anyway, so it comes down to the semantics of this being the United States so therefore the states should pick, but not entirely. There's no real reason for it.

 

The problem with that a popular vote democracy is just that. It goes on what is popular. not what needs to be done. Also, it tends to become a system where everything is brought to a vote, even if it shouldn't be, such as rights. They are not a voting issue, and yet many states which allow their people to vote on laws, such as California, treat them as such.