Posted on 11/10/2016 1:33:25 PM PST by Eddie01
bingo
Better idea...kick out the heavily populated blue counties by national vote..enforce borders..let them grow their own food...make their own power...use their own natural resources,make their own power. Watch.them disintegrate with infighting,then just go in and clean em out. These twits have no idea about reality and what men do to other men. Send them to start a colony in mosul.
My ego is not so fragile that the fact that I can't follow the math invalidates the assertion.
I do understand clearly that party affiliation is in no way related to the theory.
The theory simply validates that the original intent of the Founders leads to the same results as this mathematical "proof."
A fairer way to accomplish the problem of the tyranny of the majority, seen clearly because the Founders were experiencing the Reign of Terror in France, as they were finalizing the Constitution in its final form.
The best analogy I recall from the discussions in the thread is like saying that the winner of the World Series should be the team with the most points scored in the series, rather than games won.
Think about it...
Once the new President-Elect deports them, these states will lose many electoral votes, and bring the popular vote total more in line with the electoral vote total.
Thank you for that most excellent post. That example you stated is not just theory, but painful documented fact further aided me in understanding the math theory.
And there ARE states corrupt enough to the point that it is now expected as fact.
no.
I would have preferred an article to the genius of the electoral college, but we live in a time where knowing your enemy is equally important.
When I was a student, it was required that every one pass an examination on the Federal and state constitutions as a condition of graduating from elementary school.
The Electoral College was the product of one of the great compromises that made every state, large and small, important in the presidential election process. Otherwise candidates would campaign in major urban areas and ignore smaller communities.
It is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote because there it is all about winning the most states and not about running up totals in one or two. In five presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote failed to secure a majority in the Electoral College.
As for the lame stream media, please note that Clinton did not secure a majority of the popular vote — she only had a plurality. There were third party candidates too.
The Electoral College limits the damage done by crooked and rigged operations in states like Illinois.
One would think so. But back then schools actually TAUGHT History, Civics, etc. Now they can’t even teach cursive writing; the dumbing-down has progressed that far. It’s the faux education in government run schools.
Best regards.
It was bound to happen, a post from you that I can totally and unconditionally agree with.
I might have worded it a bit differently, but I will leave it at that.
Thank God for the Electoral College.
Thank ye kindly, good sir.
That original thread IS a tribute to the genius of the creators of the electoral college.
To grasp that, you might have to put down the bong and take a course in Reading Comprehension 101.
Therefore, it is the states - not the people - who select their Executive via the Electoral College, where the states have a weighted vote for the President.
Andrew needs to take a course on federalism.
-PJ
Looooooooooooserrrrr
I second that
So unless a bunch of swing states decide to reduce their own power, or Republican politicians conclude that a system bringing the power of small and rural states in line with that of big urban centers is a good idea, the compact isn’t going to get the support it needs . . .
The whole idea of the Electoral College was to give small states and rural states a say in who the POTUS would be.
You may as well argue why does Rhode Island get 2 Senators but California which is bigger in both population and land mass only get 2 Senators? (Which they do. It's the same reason as above and before the 17th amendment it was to give states a direct say in the Federal Government and protect states rights)
The obvious answer to the anti-American/anti-Constitution people is because the Constitution says so. The reasoning behind the Constitution is not lost on them as the article complains of that very reasoning.
The belief in the Constitution is what makes United States the United States. For 240 years it has kept this country strong, while at the same time kept the Federal Government in check. Is it perfect? No. But if we followed the constitution and amended it as needed (For example term limits, repeal of the 17th amendment, and cap income tax rates or other such adjustment) it will continue to serve it's purpose of keeping the government in check and thereby protecting the right of Individual Liberty as expressed by the Declaration of Independence.
So far the above statement is the most accurate of any post I've read, so far.
The absolute genius of the founders is on display every presidential election.
Thank God for the Electoral College
Have you seen this being quietly done:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
National Popular Vote!!!
I saw it last night and I was shocked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.