(R) Elector - "Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump"

[vampirefo]

The guy is a lying piece of shit, anyone that votes other than what the people in their state chose is a traitor.

They were elected to represent their states not their own personal opinions.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

 

[fskimospy]

The guy is a lying piece of shit, anyone that votes other than what the people in their state chose is a traitor.

They were elected to represent their states not their own personal opinions.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

The whole reason we have the electoral college is to insulate the election of the president from the will of the people. That's literally what it was designed for, for the express purpose of those electors representing their own personal opinions.

As I keep saying, people seem to really like picking and choosing parts of the electoral college to follow, based on whether it gives them the results they want.

 

[fskimospy]

That's why the democrats are so fucked up. They find anyone with a job to be deplorable, but they need people with jobs to be able to tax them to fund the people without jobs. The whole thing is very confusing to them.

If Democrats find anyone with a job to be deplorable, how do you square that with the most economically productive areas in the country being so heavily Democratic?

 

[vampirefo]

The whole reason we have the electoral college is to insulate the election of the president from the will of the people. That's literally what it was designed for, for the express purpose of those electors representing their own personal opinions.

As I keep saying, people seem to really like picking and choosing parts of the electoral college to follow, based on whether it gives them the results they want.

You do seem to be picking and choosing, their job is simple vote the way your state voted, only an idiot can fuck that up.

Luckily only a few idiots were allowed to cast their votes.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

 

[Brainonska511]

The guy is a lying piece of shit, anyone that votes other than what the people in their state chose is a traitor.

They were elected to represent their states not their own personal opinions.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

How is a winner-take-all system really representing the will of a state? If someone gets 50.1% of the vote but then gets 100% of the electors, it sounds like you're unfairly inflating what the "will of the state" really is.

You also ignore the history behind the electoral college (read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution), how it was also initially implemented, and some of Madison's writing later in his life criticizing the switch to winner-take-all systems. It's quite clear that the EC is not operating how the Founders intended. If they wanted it to be a rubber stamp, they wouldn't have bothered with an EC.

 

[fskimospy]

You do seem to be picking and choosing, their job is simple vote the way your state voted, only an idiot can fuck that up.

Luckily only a few idiots were allowed to cast their votes.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

Sorry, I'm telling you that you have to accept the whole thing or nothing. You don't get to pick and choose. If we use the electoral college instead of a popular vote that means we use the whole electoral college system, which means electors are free to ignore your vote.

You're probably thinking that sounds really shitty and unfair, right? Maybe you should want to get rid of it then.

 

[vampirefo]

How is a winner-take-all system really representing the will of a state? If someone gets 50.1% of the vote but then gets 100% of the electors, it sounds like you're unfairly inflating what the "will of the state" really is.

You also ignore the history behind the electoral college (read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution), how it was also initially implemented, and some of Madison's writing later in his life criticizing the switch to winner-take-all systems. It's quite clear that the EC is not operating how the Founders intended. If they wanted it to be a rubber stamp, they wouldn't have bothered with an EC.

Sorry you can't understand that any number above 50% means the other team lost.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

 

[vampirefo]

Sorry, I'm telling you that you have to accept the whole thing or nothing. You don't get to pick and choose. If we use the electoral college instead of a popular vote that means we use the whole electoral college system, which means electors are free to ignore your vote.

You're probably thinking that sounds really shitty and unfair, right? Maybe you should want to get rid of it then.

Nope only get rid of popular vote as it means nothing, and Electoral voters vote the way their state did if they can do a simple job like that they shouldn't be a voter, yep it's that simple.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

 

[Brainonska511]

Sorry you can't understand that any number above 50% means the other team lost.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

So 50.1% of the people should get 100% of the representatives? If you have only 1 representative, fine, but when you have more than 1, that's a pretty stupid way to divide representation.

 

[ivwshane]

Sorry you can't understand that any number above 50% means the other team lost.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

How do you represent 50.001% of the people? Lets say the state has three electors. What about if the state has 15?

 

[vampirefo]

So 50.1% of the people should get 100% of the representatives? If you have only 1 representative, fine, but when you have more than 1, that's a pretty stupid way to divide representation.

Yep, if a football team wins by one point it should be considered a tie?

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

 

[imported_tajmahal]

How is a winner-take-all system really representing the will of a state? If someone gets 50.1% of the vote but then gets 100% of the electors, it sounds like you're unfairly inflating what the "will of the state" really is.

You also ignore the history behind the electoral college (read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution), how it was also initially implemented, and some of Madison's writing later in his life criticizing the switch to winner-take-all systems. It's quite clear that the EC is not operating how the Founders intended. If they wanted it to be a rubber stamp, they wouldn't have bothered with an EC.

That's a problem with a winner take all state like California. Because the Democrats have a majority there and used it to pass laws that kept a Republican from running in the Presidential election for their US Senate seat they had a huge negative impact on Republicans that were even willing to go to the polls and vote. That along with the Motor Voter II laws that made it so ridiculously easy for illegal aliens to vote had a huge effect on both the electoral college and the popular vote counts. Change the laws to 1 State 1 vote or perhaps every Congressional District gets one vote.

 

[ivwshane]

That's a problem with a winner take all state like California. Because the Democrats have a majority there and used it to pass laws that kept a Republican from running in the Presidential election for their US Senate seat they had a huge negative impact on Republicans that were even willing to go to the polls and vote. That along with the Motor Voter II laws that made it so ridiculously easy for illegal aliens to vote had a huge effect on both the electoral college and the popular vote counts. Change the laws to 1 State 1 vote or perhaps every Congressional District gets one vote.

Well that's what you tell yourself anyway. Right? Gotta protect that bubble!

 

[Brainonska511]

Yep, if a football team wins by one point it should be considered a tie?

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

I didn't realize we were playing a football game. We're talking about a democracy here, where people should be represented proportionally.

 

[vampirefo]

I didn't realize we were playing a football game. We're talking about a democracy here, where people should be represented proportionally.

Makes no difference, a loss is a loss


Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I didn't realize we were playing a football game. We're talking about a democracy here, where people should be represented proportionally.

No, we're talking about a Republic here.

 

[Brainonska511]

That's a problem with a winner take all state like California. Because the Democrats have a majority there and used it to pass laws that kept a Republican from running in the Presidential election for their US Senate seat they had a huge negative impact on Republicans that were even willing to go to the polls and vote. That along with the Motor Voter II laws that made it so ridiculously easy for illegal aliens to vote had a huge effect on both the electoral college and the popular vote counts. Change the laws to 1 State 1 vote or perhaps every Congressional District gets one vote.

1) Winner-take-all effects every minority-party voter in every state. Republicans in California and New York are ignored and Democrats in Texas are ignored. It's not a one-party problem.
2) IIRC, California simply implemented a non-partisan primary. Maybe Republicans should have shown up more and supported their candidate if they wanted their candidate to be in the top-2 for the general election.
3) Evidence of illegals voting? Because it's basically nonexistent. Stop making shit up.
4) 1 delegate per congressional district also seems to be a terrible way to divide stuff, considering all the gerrymandering that goes on.
5) 1 state, 1 vote is also a terrible way to elect a president. It would only exacerbate the problems visible under the current system.

No, we're talking about a Republic here.

It's the same fucking thing. A republic is a type of democracy.

 

[Brainonska511]

Makes no difference, a loss is a loss
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

Except in this case, it does - you're creating an arbitrary barrier to representation. For all the talk of staying true to the Founding Fathers, some people have no problem throwing out their intent when it suits their purposes.

 

[Pens1566]

The guy is a lying piece of shit, anyone that votes other than what the people in their state chose is a traitor.

They were elected to represent their states not their own personal opinions.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

Do you know how I know you don't understand the constitution?

 

[vampirefo]

Except in this case, it does - you're creating an arbitrary barrier to representation. For all the talk of staying true to the Founding Fathers, some people have no problem throwing out their intent when it suits their purposes.

Nope, you are trying to help a loser, who can't handle a loss, it's so simple a child can did it, yet seems complex to you.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

 

[vampirefo]

Do you know how I know you don't understand the constitution?

Do you know how I know I don't care what you think?

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

 

[Pens1566]

Do you know how I know I don't care what you think?

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

About what was expected.

 

[fskimospy]

No, we're talking about a Republic here.

A republic is a type of democracy, genius.

http://wapo.st/2fMtrWj

I often hear people argue (often quite militantly) that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

This 'we are a republic, not a democracy' thing has become a really common way for stupid people to try and sound smart.

 

[vampirefo]

About what was expected.

Good.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

 

[Pens1566]

Good.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

Nah, it's great. Your team "won", we all lost.