More Muslims admitting their claims of harassment by Trump supporters following the election were lies.morekaos said:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...attack-lie-angers-de-blasio-article-1.2913526
Presidential Elections
- Thread starter eyephone
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...attack-lie-angers-de-blasio-article-1.2913526
We are also the same state that passed the plastic bag ban and higher state income.
I think he just points how the popular vote is kind of flawed too. Mainly would really just show how Californians vote which is Democrat all the time.
Nope. That's not why it was created. It was mostly a logistical problem and established in such a way to give Congress more power in the final say. Keep in mind that states decide how to partition their electoral votes.
You are thinking of representation in Senate where a small state has equal voting power as a populous state.
That's certainly one of the more naive opinions on the Electoral College that I have come across. Not too surprised as the context is Bush v. Gore.
In its inception the US had a rather elitist government and electors were needed since the will of the people could not always be trusted. It was intended to result in no winner by majority so that it would befall on congress (the elitists that knew better than the masses) to pick the next president. Winner-take-all assignments actually were done in part to generate an outcome were one candidate would get the majority of votes, thus avoid this particular scenario.
In our current split, swing states matter because there is some division in the larger states. You can certainly come up with a possible scenario were small states become inconsequential if enough larger states swing only one way.
The electoral college only benefits smaller states slightly by effectively weighing their votes over those in more populated states. If enough large states swing one way, this becomes moot.
Now don't even get started on third party candidates as they have zero changes under this system.
The guy who wrote that "naive" opinion has some heavy duty credentials...I'll take his word for it.
Ronald D. Rotunda is the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, at Chapman University, the Dale E. Fowler School of Law. He joined the faculty in 2008. Before that, he was University Professor and Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law. From 2002 to 2006, he was the George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law. Before that, he was the Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Professor of Law, at the University of Illinois. He is a magna cum laude graduate of both Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he was a member of Harvard Law Review. He joined the University of Illinois faculty in 1974 after clerking for Judge Walter R. Mansfield of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, practicing law in Washington, D.C., and serving as assistant majority counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee. He has co-authored the most widely used course book on legal ethics, Problems and Materials on Professional Responsibility (F
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...attack-lie-angers-de-blasio-article-1.2913526
morekaos
Well-known member
All due to our DB state...
It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California
If you take California out of the popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. And if California voted like every other Democratic state ? where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins ? Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)
Meanwhile, if you look at every other measure, Trump was the clear and decisive winner in this election
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California
If you take California out of the popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. And if California voted like every other Democratic state ? where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins ? Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)
Meanwhile, if you look at every other measure, Trump was the clear and decisive winner in this election
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
usctrojancpa
Well-known member
morekaos said:
We are also the same state that passed the plastic bag ban and higher state income.
J
jmoney74
Guest
peppy said:
I think he just points how the popular vote is kind of flawed too. Mainly would really just show how Californians vote which is Democrat all the time.
morekaos said:
Nope. That's not why it was created. It was mostly a logistical problem and established in such a way to give Congress more power in the final say. Keep in mind that states decide how to partition their electoral votes.
You are thinking of representation in Senate where a small state has equal voting power as a populous state.
morekaos
Well-known member
No, it is certainly a major part of it...
The Framers of our Constitution invented a system that would establish a democracy while protecting minority rights. They created the Electoral College to protect the residents of the smaller states, and they rejected government by simple majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictatorships, not democracy.
To win the presidency, the candidate must receive a majority of the electoral votes. To determine how many electoral votes a state has, just take the number of each state?s U.S. Representatives and add two (which represents the number of Senators for each state). Even the residents of the smallest states (or the District of Columbia) have a minimum of three electoral votes.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-electoral-college-works-why-it-works-well
The Framers of our Constitution invented a system that would establish a democracy while protecting minority rights. They created the Electoral College to protect the residents of the smaller states, and they rejected government by simple majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictatorships, not democracy.
To win the presidency, the candidate must receive a majority of the electoral votes. To determine how many electoral votes a state has, just take the number of each state?s U.S. Representatives and add two (which represents the number of Senators for each state). Even the residents of the smallest states (or the District of Columbia) have a minimum of three electoral votes.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-electoral-college-works-why-it-works-well
sgip
Well-known member
Was NOT surprised to hear of 2 "faithless electors" for The Rabid Orangutan.
Was REALLY surprised to hear of 4 certain and almost 2 additional "faithless electors" for the Scabrous Gorgon.
Them dang Rooksies did a heckuva job when even your own party's electors can't bring themselves to pull the "I'm With Her" trigger.
Was REALLY surprised to hear of 4 certain and almost 2 additional "faithless electors" for the Scabrous Gorgon.
Them dang Rooksies did a heckuva job when even your own party's electors can't bring themselves to pull the "I'm With Her" trigger.
tim
New member
Nonprofit Run by Donald Trump?s Sons Offers Inauguration Access for $1 Millionhttp://time.com/4607439/donald-trump-inauguration-sons-nonprofit-texas/
Truly a President for the common man.
Truly a President for the common man.
morekaos said:
That's certainly one of the more naive opinions on the Electoral College that I have come across. Not too surprised as the context is Bush v. Gore.
In its inception the US had a rather elitist government and electors were needed since the will of the people could not always be trusted. It was intended to result in no winner by majority so that it would befall on congress (the elitists that knew better than the masses) to pick the next president. Winner-take-all assignments actually were done in part to generate an outcome were one candidate would get the majority of votes, thus avoid this particular scenario.
In our current split, swing states matter because there is some division in the larger states. You can certainly come up with a possible scenario were small states become inconsequential if enough larger states swing only one way.
The electoral college only benefits smaller states slightly by effectively weighing their votes over those in more populated states. If enough large states swing one way, this becomes moot.
Now don't even get started on third party candidates as they have zero changes under this system.
morekaos
Well-known member
Oh the painful irony...after the excruciating recount that saw trumps numbers increase now this insult to injury as howls for rebellion net fewer Hillary electors...I couldn't have written a funnier ending to this election. That's a wrap!!
Donald Trump wins Electoral College - as attempts to cause rebellion turn to farce with DEMOCRATS deserting Hillary
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4048394/The-Latest-Electoral-College-meets-formally-elect-Trump.html?ito=email_share_mobile-masthead
Donald Trump wins Electoral College - as attempts to cause rebellion turn to farce with DEMOCRATS deserting Hillary
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4048394/The-Latest-Electoral-College-meets-formally-elect-Trump.html?ito=email_share_mobile-masthead
morekaos
Well-known member
peppy said:
The guy who wrote that "naive" opinion has some heavy duty credentials...I'll take his word for it.
Ronald D. Rotunda is the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, at Chapman University, the Dale E. Fowler School of Law. He joined the faculty in 2008. Before that, he was University Professor and Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law. From 2002 to 2006, he was the George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law. Before that, he was the Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Professor of Law, at the University of Illinois. He is a magna cum laude graduate of both Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he was a member of Harvard Law Review. He joined the University of Illinois faculty in 1974 after clerking for Judge Walter R. Mansfield of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, practicing law in Washington, D.C., and serving as assistant majority counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee. He has co-authored the most widely used course book on legal ethics, Problems and Materials on Professional Responsibility (F
Another Trump Christmas Parody
https://youtu.be/sW85ZcswiqM
https://youtu.be/sW85ZcswiqM