Author Topic: The same dumb motherfuckers who wanted to get rid of the Electoral College in 00  (Read 264 times)

Trauma-san

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 16639
  • Karma: -231
Let me see if I got this straight.  The same motherfuckers who wanted to get rid of the Electoral College in 00' because it 'didn't reflect the will of the people', even though it's written into THE U.S. CONSTITUTION are the same motherfuckers who have a personal system of electing a president that relies on massive amounts of paperwork being filed in each state; some states votes don't even count for anything because party officials are holding grudges against what day the states hold primaries on, some states you can not only vote, but also have a caucus; even if you've already voted.  Other states, anybody can show up the day of the election and vote for whomever they want even if they're a registered Republican...; and then in the end of the day, 'super-delegates' will actually decide who America gets to vote for in back rooms, largely based on whom has donated the most to their individual campaigns.  You can literally buy a super delegates vote. 

and these are the people who are bitching that 'every vote should count' in '00, but now are pissed that republicans voted to keep Hillary in the competition in Texas so they can keep fighting?  Why don't the republican votes count?  Why don't the votes in Florida and Michigan count? 

There's nothing immoral about this.  This is just republicans showing the democrats what bitches they are and how completely fucked up their election system is.  It's a complete joke. 


------------------

On the republican side, you show up, vote.  Whoever gets the most votes, wins.  No hidden super delegates.  No states that don't get to vote.  No bullshit where you have a vote, then a caucaus later in the night that the same people can vote in.  Just a straight up vote. 
 

MarkCruz

  • Guest
YOU DO KNOW THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ALSO PENALIZED FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN FOR MOVING THEIR PRIMARIES UP.
EACH STATE GOT THEIR DELEGATES COUNT CUT BY 50 %.

FLORIDA/MICHIGAN FUCKED UP THEY COULD HAVE BEEN KEY TO DECIDING THE NOMINEE IF THEY HAD JUST STAYED IN THEIR PLACE.
THIS ISN'T NOVEMBER 4 AND WERE ARE NOT DECIDING WHO THE PRESIDENT WILL BE.

REPUBLICANS VOTING FOR HILARY BECAUSE RUSH/RADIO TOLD THEM TOO SHOULD KILL THEMSELVES.
 

Turf Hitta

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3374
  • Karma: 13
LOL why don't republican votes count??? LMAO are you serious? maybe because its the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
 

Turf Hitta

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3374
  • Karma: 13
I would also like to add that I don't give a fuck about how much paperwork needs to get filed in order for the will of the people to be properly served. And I dont think we would need all this imaginary paperwork you assume we would need. Why would we need more paperwork than is already necessary?
 

Javier

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 8585
  • Karma: 284
You're a dumb motherfucker.
 

Machiavelli

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
  • Karma: 134
you cant get rid of the electoral college...that would be unfair
 

Turf Hitta

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3374
  • Karma: 13
you cant get rid of the electoral college...that would be unfair

Even in cases like Bush vs Gore where more people voted for Gore but Bush won?
 

Machiavelli

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
  • Karma: 134
you cant get rid of the electoral college...that would be unfair

Even in cases like Bush vs Gore where more people voted for Gore but Bush won?

all that shit has to do with florida...places like california, new york, texas and shit which have a bigger population decide whos president while states like wyoming, north dakota have very little say. That would be unfair.
 

Turf Hitta

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3374
  • Karma: 13
you cant get rid of the electoral college...that would be unfair

Even in cases like Bush vs Gore where more people voted for Gore but Bush won?

all that shit has to do with florida...places like california, new york, texas and shit which have a bigger population decide whos president while states like wyoming, north dakota have very little say. That would be unfair.

You have completely failed to illustrate how counting every vote could be unfair. And you're wrong. All that shit does not have to do with Florida. It has to do with the electoral college failing the people. more people voted for Gore, but Gore lost. How do you justify that?
 

Teddy Roosevelt

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7537
  • Karma: 179
  • The Trust-Buster
you cant get rid of the electoral college...that would be unfair

Even in cases like Bush vs Gore where more people voted for Gore but Bush won?

all that shit has to do with florida...places like california, new york, texas and shit which have a bigger population decide whos president while states like wyoming, north dakota have very little say. That would be unfair.
So your arguing against every vote counting equally? So what if one person lives in California and one person lives in Wyoming. Why should one person's vote count less just because they decided to live in a bigger state?
 

Machiavelli

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
  • Karma: 134
Well for one its in the Constitution, maintains a separation of powers and keeps the 3 branches in check to minimize threats to liberty. Keeps the federal character of the nation. It neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between states.

Most importantly it forces a candidate to seek popular support over a majority of the country. Since a candidate cannot count on winning the election based solely on a heavy concentration of votes in a few populated areas the Electoral college avoids much of the sectionalism that has plagued other geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and the Roman Empire.

The only problem I have with the system is that it encourages stability through the two-party system and has a negative effect on third parties.
 

Turf Hitta

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3374
  • Karma: 13
Well for one its in the Constitution, maintains a separation of powers and keeps the 3 branches in check to minimize threats to liberty. Keeps the federal character of the nation. It neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between states.

Most importantly it forces a candidate to seek popular support over a majority of the country. Since a candidate cannot count on winning the election based solely on a heavy concentration of votes in a few populated areas the Electoral college avoids much of the sectionalism that has plagued other geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and the Roman Empire.

The only problem I have with the system is that it encourages stability through the two-party system and has a negative effect on third parties.

How does it "maintain a separation of powers?" I don't even know what you mean by that in this context.

  You're placing too much value on states. States don't vote. PEOPLE vote. What is a state? Essentially the only thing differentiating any state from any other state is imaginary lines. You're basically saying that a person in Wyoming deserves a louder voice than people in more populated areas simply because they live out in the middle of nowhere. The electoral college is flawed because it can allow for the loser of the popular vote to win the election.

  Turnout disparities should not matter. You have yet to present a single reason why any person should have a louder voice than any other. That kind of undermines the nature of democracy when you imply that one person's vote should be more significant than another, don't you think?