So New York and California get to control the entire nation and tell farmers in the mid west they have no say in how to run their farms. The electoral system is to protect the nation from dumbshits like you who think you are smarter than everybody else and get do dictate everyone's life style.

It gives lesser populated states equal voice on election day.

I also stops this nation from becoming a giant socialist / communist ghetto.

All democrats want popular vote because you have the numbers in your giant ghettos where you have the masses believing / bullshitted that they need the government to survive and make decisions for them. Just like open borders guarantees a democratic vote, just like releasing criminals from prisons gaurantees a democratic vote.

Never going to happen.

Where is the like button when you need it!

Do you know how math works?

Without the Electoral College, States no longer come into play. The population of the USA is 328 to 329 million people. The ones that are eligible to vote get to vote for the President (one person/one vote). The candidate with the most votes becomes President.

Do you really think that there aren't any Republicans in NYC? No Democrats in Omaha?

The less populated States already have the equalization you're taking about. It's called the U.S. Senate.

Your high school government class should have shown you that the founders knew that was a fail. They just came from a non-representative government and they wanted no more of that. It was a fail.


Surely you have seen the US map with red states/blue states and know what that means.


David, you have it wrong. The populated areas would make all the decisions. The president would be elected by NYC, LA, and 2 or 3 other big cities. The rest of the country would have NO say. ZERO.

Senate? Come on, do they elect the president?

Trying to help, you just have it wrong.

I never said they did, you knuckle-headed idiot. I mentioned the Senate only to (try and) explain that the fifty States already have equal say when it comes to legislation. The President works for all of us and the popular vote should be the way he, she or they gets elected.

I know you love looking at a map of the USA with all of the States colored in Red and Blue. Be careful how you interpret that. A State with a 49% -51% balance will be colored red or blue depending.

The current system causes candidates to focus their campaigning disproportionately in a few swing states and the allocation of Electoral College votes gives citizens in less populated states (e.g., Wyoming) as much as four times the voting power as those in more populous states (e.g., California).

Doesn't sound fair to me.

Reading this comment coming from a libtard homo made morning coffee spurt thru my nose. Love starting Friday with some humor!

Wait, did you just call me a homo? Really? You are a vile human being. Just vile. And you're homophobic. And we all know what that means - come out of the closet my friend.

...bla bla bla...


Thank you for your kind words. I don’t recall saying anything to make you defensive and ugly. Trying to have a civil and instructive conversation.

The tone of your previous post was that the balance of the Senate somehow would make up for three metropolitan regions of the country electing the president. That is not sound judgment. The 49/51% argument is irrelevant.

When I have asked you to explain how it works, or explain what you don’t like about it and how changing it would fix those perceived problems, you have resorted to name calling. That tells me you do not fully understand it.

The fact that you say it ”does not sound fair” also tells me that you really don’t understand it.

I know you’re an intelligent guy, and I honestly believe that if you dug in and spent a couple hours reading how it came about, you would come to a different conclusion. Unfortunately, I don’t think you care enough to do anything but parrot what you have heard.

I’m not slamming you with that previous comment. I am all for rational discussion and facts. I think that is a difference between you and me. I am willing to let you prove to me with facts that I am wrong. I think that you are only interested in the party line, facts notwithstanding.

You are so full of it I don't know where to begin. Many of us on here have repeatedly offered you rational, thoughtful and factual information. Every single time your rebuttal has been: "So? Everyone does it" or words similar. You are constantly making false equivalencies - so much so that I won't bother responding to you anymore.

Your rebuttals are worse, only because you cite things that you consider to be facts, that are only your easily refutable opinions.

“...doesn’t sound fair”

Awwww.

I am honored that you are done with me.

On this Keeling Curve graph, see if you can find the spots where Bush, Obama and UN folks did heroic stuff to heal the planet. [img][/img]

[img][/img]

The last two months had reduced MM fossil fuel emissions, the chart is not following.
I would hope it would show a bit more from reduced cars, planes, etc.

That's because the chart is taking measurements in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Give it awhile to catch up.

For a more immediate observation check out the air quality changes from January until today in Mexico City, Los Angeles, New Delhi etc.

The economy is all shot to hell, but never mind the penury, just breathe the cleaner air.

[IMG][/IMG] I am certainly glad they found the CFCs to be the problem and banned them. There are still more pollutants to ban, but
The false prediction in all of this was TM Donahue saying that his Hole was a "great Peril to life" Well there is a huge hole there. Still not seeing the Great gobs of peril...

I will give it another month to see if it has not fallen with decreased fossil fuel use from planes , cars, machinery, etc. I am sure the cities are better without the CO. and NO. I know of no observation stations that measure the CO2 in LA. You have a link?