The Case For Biden

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The Electoral College has failed to represent the American public five times throughout United States' history: in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016, a presidential candidate has won the election, despite losing the popular vote.

That is incorrect. The Electoral College represented the will of the American people in those elections.

The popular vote is of little relevance. The will of the American people is far more important.

0 Replies

@revelette3,

revelette3 wrote:

Taking him at his word, he did own up to saying the words once he found it. But there was no reason to insult snood and basically call him a liar.

I disagree. Treating Snood respectfully will just result in him being rude and obnoxious. It's just not worth the effort.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I cant ignore him/her. Its such a simple-minded liar that even his "posse" catches him up frequently.

I'm guessing that you cannot point out any untrue statements in his posts (or flaws in his thinking).

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Nonsense. The candidate in my state graciously conceded to the Republican victor.

Look at Al Gore's endless recount efforts in 2000. Look at Stacey Abrams' refusal to concede Georgia in 2018.

hightor wrote:

Nonsense. Trump did the exact same thing, early Wednesday morning.

That's bad logic. The fact that Mr. Trump gives progressives a taste of their own medicine does not change the fact that progressives act this way.

Look at the way progressives behaved election night 2012. Or the way they started demanding that Mr. Trump concede in 2020 before his loss was actually clear.

hightor wrote:

Nonsense. The behavior of liberals and conservatives is not that different with respect to name-calling. Some do and some don't.

It always seems to be the progressives doing the name-calling. The few times that it's conservatives, the name-calling is a reaction to name-calling directed at them.

hightor wrote:

Nonsense. The failure to update the 200 year old concept of the "militia" has inadvertently led to the deaths of innocent people at the hands of armed fanatics

Not a single death has ever been caused by any supposed failure to update the concept of the militia.

hightor wrote:

concern about public safety is a sufficient reason to alter firearms laws.

Not when the alterations have zero to do with public safety.

hightor wrote:

It has nothing to do with sadism or pleasure.

If that were true then you would have been able to state the actual motivation.

Your inability to provide any alternative motivation for outlawing pistol grips shows quite clearly that progressives violate people's civil liberties solely because they enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

hightor wrote:

Nonsense. Liberals and progressives can be seen backing up their claims in nearly every thread, if not every post.

That is incorrect. Progressives almost never back up their claims.

hightor wrote:

Nonsense. Election officials flatly declare that the election 'was the most secure in American history.'

Progressives were cheating somewhere. It's a given that wherever there is voting, progressives are trying to cheat.

hightor wrote:

Nonsense. bobsal hasn't been on A2K for weeks. One person doesn't get to represent an entire class of people. Suspicious down-voting still occurs and it is directed at critics of Trump.

The fact that a conservative got fed up with bobsal's cheating, figured out how he did it, and turned the tactic against progressives, doesn't change the fact that bobsal has had a long and unpleasant history of such cheating.

hightor wrote:

Nonsense. Progressives didn't initiate the Whitewater or Benghazi investigations, nor did they pitch the "birther" or "QAnon" conspiracies.

That's more bad logic. The fact that conservatives give progressives a dose of their own medicine now and then does not change the reality that progressives engage in these tactics.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

The will of the american people is by definition the popular vot. It is what we freely choose en masse. That is the will of the american people, not the artificial construct of the electoral college

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

No it isn't. The will of the American people is expressed by the Electoral College. The popular vote has nothing to do with it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Nonsense. The popular vote is the will of the american people. It is our free choice of what we want as validated by the majority of the american people.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

That is incorrect. The will of the American people is expressed by the result of the Electoral College.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

No. The e.c. is intentionally weighted to give some people more control over whatt it does than others. That is completely against accepted principles of american democracy. It is in the constitution purely for political considerations of two plus centuries ago which no longer apply.n It's intentionally unrepresentative of american opinon or the founding principles of equality.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

The weighting is not intentional and is easily fixed without harming the Electoral College.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

of course it's intentional. It's inherent in the way it's written. that's why the founding fathers put it in the constitution. And as long as the smaller less populated states each get those two extra votes apiece for senator, and as long as those smaller less populated states outnumber badly the larger more populaous states, it will continue.nnYour "remedy" if the electors were increased hugely would dilute that edge but would not eliminate it. California, for example has rthe same aggregate population as twenty two other states. It has two electors representing its senstors. Those 22 other states have 44 electors representing senators. That's unequal weighting.And even with the bultin anti=democracy and the rampanr ongoing republican chicanery, biden won both electoral college, with the same number akof e.c. votes as trump got in what he called a "landslide" in 2016, as well as winning the popular voteconvincingly, which is why joe biden WILL be out next president.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

If we ratify the Apportionment Amendment, the nation will have more than 6,000 congressmen. That will dilute the disparity so much that the difference caused by senators will be trivially small.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

as well as make Congress completely unwieldy. Since 48 states' laws currently require electors to vote in accord with that staes' popular vote anyway, just require them to vote fn accord with the NAtIONAL popular vote and the problem is solved. Just change one word in state law and democrACY IS RESTORED.

1 Reply

a2k goes through some sort of reset cycle every night in the five minute period in which you just posted, from 35 minutes to 40 minutes past the hour (which hour depends on your time zone).

When the site is locked down, it's best to just wait out the five minutes. It looks like you posted right at the end of the lockdown. Had you posted a few seconds later there would have been no problem. I'm sure the moderators will trim the duplicate posts in the morning.

I don't think that having more than 6,000 representatives would make Congress unwieldy. They all couldn't be in the House at the same time, but voting could be done electronically from a distance. I think it would change America for the better.

I strongly oppose having Michigan's electoral votes go to any candidates that Michigan did not vote for. Letting other states decide our votes for us is the exact opposite of democracy.

We already have democracy. There is no need to restore it.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

as well as make Congress completely unwieldy. Since 48 states' laws currently require electors to vote in accord with that staes' popular vote anyway, just require them to vote fn accord with the NAtIONAL popular vote and the problem is solved. Just change one word in state law and democrACY IS RESTORED.

You are absolutely correct in that. The Senate will still be weighted to the small states, but at least the influence on the Electoral College will be ended.

The moron, Trump, actually began his time in office railing against the EC...claiming it favored the Democrats, when everyone with a brain realizes it effectively favors the Republicans right now.

I'm hoping the needed votes to construct the bloc needed for that change happens soon.

By the way, I don't for a moment think that will cure everything. New problems will present themselves. But I doubt any will be nearly as bad, unfair, or anti-democratic than the way things are now.

When the EC is fixed, the flurry of activity at the SCOTUS will be enormous from the Republican side of the aisle.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Giving the voters in montana a grreater say in electing a predident for a!ll of us than the citizens of mibchjigan is undemocratic. Giving michiganders a greater say tha californians is undemocratic. one citizen
one vote, not one citizen 1.2votes.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I disagree. Treating Snood respectfully will just result in him being rude and obnoxious. It's just not worth the effort.

****. I have been trying to figure out how to word this for years and there it is!

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

snood wrote:
So, how are those liberal tears tasting?

He'll let you know in 2024.

Seriously? You’re grasping, badly. Like a boxer boasting about a rematch- right after taking an ass whuppin’.

You just wait for four years! Then I’ll show ya!

Pitiful.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

of course it's intentional. It's inherent in the way it's written. that's why the founding fathers put it in the constitution. And as long as the smaller less populated states each get those two extra votes apiece for senator, and as long as those smaller less populated states outnumber badly the larger more populous states, it will continue. Your "remedy" if the electors were increased hugely would dilute that edge but would not eliminate it. California, for example has the same aggregate population as twenty two other states. It has two electors representing its senators. Those 22 other states have 44 electors representing senators. That's unequal weighting and even with the built-in anti-democracy and the rampant ongoing republican chicanery, Biden won both electoral college, with the same number of e.c. votes as trump got in what he called a "landslide" in 2016, as well as winning the popular vote convincingly, which is why joe Biden WILL be out next president.

Yes it is intentional because we have a Federal government and not a Democracy. The 50 US states are sovereign and because of that we do not allow for a populous vote to elect the President.

Don't you guys know these things? Also, your ridiculous math about Senators is ******* stupid because it ignores the fact that the population of a state also guarantees electors.

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Yes it is intentional because we have a Federal government and not a Democracy. The 50 US states are sovereign and because of that we do not allow for a populous vote to elect the President.

Don't you guys know these things?

Well, I didn't know this.
But mainly, it seems, because I was taught differently, both at scholl as well as at university.

We think here that examples of federal republics include the United States, Germany, and Switzerland:
Article 20 (1) of our constitution: Article 20 [Constitutional principles] The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.)
Preamble of the Swiss Constitution: ... alliance so as to strengthen liberty, democracy, independence and peace ...

Switzerland as well as Germany (and the USA) are federal republics, no e.g. monarchies, and run their governments unde democratic ideals.

So we're wrong.
Thanks for teaching, McG!

2 Replies

The Case For Biden

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know