Trump gives classified information to staff to whom the FBI will not give clearance

[BobaFetaCheese]

The Electoral College is a compromise, which means it’s not the will of anybody.

It doesn't matter how it came about. The people can choose to change things any time they want. So far they haven't.

 

[Hypoxia]

The Electoral College is a compromise, which means it’s not the will of anybody.

The electoral college (never actually established, just so-called after the fact) and the counting of Native Americans and slaves as zero or partial persons were political ploys needed to get small white-majority states to join the Union game. They have nothing to do with principles, only with power-plays.

The will of the voters is easy to determine: whom- or what-ever gets the most votes, wins. Some jurisdictions allow runoffs but not in Presidential voting. Them and those NOT receiving the most votes, lose -- except in the electoral collage, where losers are rewarded.

Please, somebody convince me that rewarding losers is good.

 

[pointless]

No, they can't just choose to change it any time they want. It's far more complicated than that.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

No, they can't just choose to change it any time they want. It's far more complicated than that.

Would require an amendment and whatever else might be needed but the people can make that decision. Thus far there hasn't been more than some whining now and then. If the people really wanted it to change it'd change.

 

[pointless]

Yes, just a constitutional amendment. No big deal.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Yes, just a constitutional amendment. No big deal.

It is a huge deal but it's still the will of the people.

 

[Hypoxia]

It is a huge deal but it's still the will of the people.

Tromp lost the popular vote ("the will of the voters") but took the game. Convince me that rewarding losers is a good thing.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Tromp lost the popular vote ("the will of the voters") but took the game. Convince me that rewarding losers is a good thing.

It's how our system works. Dont like it, work to change it. For the most part it works just fine. The popular loser has only won what 3 times? Pretty good percentage overall. I'm ok with it.
Not to mention I'd prefer that California and New York don't get to decide who's in charge.

 

[Sean]

It's how our system works. Dont like it, work to change it. For the most part it works just fine. The popular loser has only won what 3 times? Pretty good percentage overall. I'm ok with it.
Not to mention I'd prefer that California and New York don't get to decide who's in charge.

Yeah, obviously someone in Wyoming should have four times the voting power of someone in CA or NY. It's only fair after all.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Yeah, obviously someone in Wyoming should have four times the voting power of someone in CA or NY. It's only fair after all.

It's as fair as it gets at the moment. Doesn't seem to be a problem any other time.

 

[Sean]

It's as fair as it gets at the moment. Doesn't seem to be a problem any other time.

It's a problem when one person's vote is worth more than another. I've always said the EC was bollocks, long before His Orangeness was in the WH.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

It's a problem when one person's vote is worth more than another. I've always said the EC was bollocks, long before His Orangeness was in the WH.

So...work to change it. Like any other law. Otherwise it's just whining.
As it is it's best option we have. Would you prefer the popular vote option if CA and NY were conservative? I'm guessing not.

 

[Sean]

So...work to change it. Like any other law. Otherwise it's just whining.
As it is it's best option we have. Would you prefer the popular vote option if CA and NY were conservative? I'm guessing not.

Yes, I would.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Yes, I would.

Sorry but I don't think a couple states (or 3 or 4) should get to decide our leader.
I understand the problem and don't disagree with some sort of popular vote option but as it is it's not the law of the land and every time it becomes an issue people whine and cry and do absolutely nothing.
It's the way we do things. Change it or shut the fuck up.

 

[Sean]

Sorry but I don't think a couple states (or 3 or 4) should get to decide our leader.
I understand the problem and don't disagree with some sort of popular vote option but as it is it's not the law of the land and every time it becomes an issue people whine and cry and do absolutely nothing.
It's the way we do things. Change it or shut the fuck up.

Why have a plebiscite at all, then? Just have Congress decide the presidency.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The American electorate DECIDED ~51-49 that HRC was preferable to DJT, that his direction was wrong. The electoral college, like gerrymandering, rewards losers. We see how well that's working. Roll your eyes all you want. Current rule does not represent the will of the voters. Convince me that's good.

The Electoral College itself is the will of the people.

The Electoral College is a compromise, which means it’s not the will of anybody.

It doesn't matter how it came about. The people can choose to change things any time they want. So far they haven't.

The electoral college (never actually established, just so-called after the fact) and the counting of Native Americans and slaves as zero or partial persons were political ploys needed to get small white-majority states to join the Union game. They have nothing to do with principles, only with power-plays.

The will of the voters is easy to determine: whom- or what-ever gets the most votes, wins. Some jurisdictions allow runoffs but not in Presidential voting. Them and those NOT receiving the most votes, lose -- except in the electoral collage, where losers are rewarded.

Please, somebody convince me that rewarding losers is good.

No, they can't just choose to change it any time they want. It's far more complicated than that.

Would require an amendment and whatever else might be needed but the people can make that decision. Thus far there hasn't been more than some whining now and then. If the people really wanted it to change it'd change.

Yes, just a constitutional amendment. No big deal.

It is a huge deal but it's still the will of the people.

With the exception of BobaCheese, have any of you clowns ever taken a basic civics course?

Reducing all of the above claptrap to their basic context, we come up with the following philosophical "principles" as advocated by contributor.

Hypoxia: The "will of the people" is ONLY reflected by a majority vote of ALL the people, and since the makeup and operation of the Electoral College allows for the possibility (RARELY manifested throughout our history) that that will may NOT be reflected, it's existence is illegitimate. This "principle" applied to each branch of the government, and the Constitution itself, indicts ALL forms of representative government based on apportionment (no matter how that apportionment is calculated) WHEREVER AND WHENEVER that government denies a popular vote on any political question.

And if you are going to deny that, Mr. H -- if the decision of a popular vote majority serves to legitimize the election of local, state, U. S. Senators and Representatives in the districts they represent, then why does it not legitimize their drafting of a Constitution, the manner in which they prescribed to amend that document, AND the very ratification OF the fucking amendment (the 12th) that established the method of voting for "electors" for the election of a President???? Why indeed.

And furthermore, what do we do about the unvoiced will of people eligible to vote who do not do so, but then bitch about the result anyway? Are the rest of us entitled morally and philosophically to tell them to STFU? Does that right extend to disenfranchising anyone, who at any point in time, was/is NOT a citizen under law and NOT entitled to vote irrespective of the reason and regardless of the political environment NOW? How much apologizing for political exclusions and failure to affect correction do we have to make for duly elected (by a democratic majority) officials who presumably "reflect" our will in initiating, supporting or merely allowing those exclusions and failures? Don't we "deserve" the very government WE (other than the "illegitimate" President) elect?

THAT's where the eyerolls come from. One more:

Phrodeau: "a compromise means it is not the will of anybody." Really? Not even the will of those who agreed to the compromise? When did this word lose its entire meaning? There simply aren't enough eyerolls for this one.

Pointless: The fact that the people cannot change political binds "anytime they want" because their ability to do so is "complicated" by the difficulty of the process of amending the Constitution, here again, implies illegitimacy of representative government by the very duly elected representatives who fashioned the process.

One graduating from the Socratic School of Pointless Hypo-Deau can only conclude that our founding fathers, rather than freeing us from the tyranny of despots and monarchs, enslaved not only Native Americans and kidnapped Africans, but the very Anglo Saxon white males who sought to oppress them.

How pitifully ironic. In a way, you would think that would give our above cited Lib critics cause for celebration.

 

[pointless]

I remember when I used to think you were kinda smart. Seems so very long ago these days.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Why have a plebiscite at all, then? Just have Congress decide the presidency.

As I've been saying, don't like it, change it. It may take time and a whole lot of effort but it CAN be done. Personally I like the popular vote option but I also don't want some San Francisco hippy or NYC hipster deciding who the President is. Certainly there is a happy medium if we actually look for it.

 

[Hypoxia]

Hypoxia: The "will of the people" is ONLY reflected by a majority vote of ALL the people

Where did you see me refer to "will of the people"? Spoiler: nowhere. I said "will of the voters," and the voters of the USA did not elect Tromp -- a batch of unelected 'electors' did so, under various rules in the states.

Convince me that rewarding the loser of a popular vote is good.

 

[pointless]

Fucking deja vu, yo.

 

[coachdb18]

The electoral college system for electing the President works exactly as the founders expected it would, preventing the collection of power into any one conclave that could rule over the other 99% of the country unchecked. Democrats would love to control the entire country from NYC and San Francisco, but the country is a lot bigger and a lot smarter than those little nests.

As far as amending the Constitution, we've made some really bad changes via that process (direct election of senators, prohibition, income tax, etc). Granted, there have been some that have been more enlightened. The Bill of Rights was originally fought by many because the thinking was these are Natural Laws (ie God's laws) and shouldn't be placed into man's laws, as someday, somebody would be so stupid as to try and amend or worse, repeal them (about as smart as repealing the laws of physics, the law of gravity, etc).

Getting back to the topic at hand, Democrats have never much cared about national security, as was evidenced by Hillary's classified on her bathroom server, and distributing it to none other than Anthony Weiner.... They were aware of hackers getting into the DNC computers, and allowed their anti-American emails to fall into public view, further ruining Hillary's guarantee to ascendancy. They've sold materials to foreign enemies that hold the ability to kill millions of us, and then seek our votes. Thankfully, we have avoided total collapse. Obama took us to the brink, so hopefully there are enough wiser heads to prevent more such calamity.

 

[OldJourno]

Tromp lost the popular vote ("the will of the voters") but took the game. Convince me that rewarding losers is a good thing.

I am convinced it's not a good idea to not let New York and California decide who gets elected president.

 

[Hypoxia]

[more crap from the traitor]

The electoral college rewards losers. You think that's good? Tell your boss Kim.

 

[OldJourno]

The electoral college rewards losers. You think that's good? Tell your boss Kim.

California rewards losers, too. You think that's good? Pick up a map that shows where human shit is piling up in public places in San Francisco.

 

[coachdb18]

California rewards losers, too. You think that's good? Pick up a map that shows where human shit is piling up in public places in San Francisco.

But if Hillary had won, then the electoral college would be fine, and wouldn't be for 'losers', right?