Re: A direct popular election of the president

[D. Trumpp]

On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:

> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>
> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.

Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.

Try again.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/27/2022 5:18 PM, D. Trumpp wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>
>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>
>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>
> Nope,

Yes, it has.

[John Baker]

What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
million votes, but still "win" the election?

>
>Try again.

No need, Sparky. I got it right the first time.






AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
><dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>
>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>
>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>
>>Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>
>What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>million votes, but still "win" the election?

I call it a win for state's rights and the people of smaller populated
states.

[David Hartung]

On 9/28/22 05:31, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
>> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>>
>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>
>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>
>>> Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>>
>> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>> million votes, but still "win" the election?
>
> I call it a win for state's rights and the people of smaller populated
> states.

Absolutely.

[Scout]

"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bu87jhhvm2081vl7c...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>
>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>
>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>
>>Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>
> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
> million votes, but still "win" the election?

A Republic?

You know, the sort of government we're suppose to have.

[AlleyCat]

On 9/28/2022 3:31 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
>> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>>
>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>
>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>
>>> Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>>
>> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>> million votes, but still "win" the election?
>
> I call it a win for state's rights and

States don't have "rights," and the electoral college has nothing to do with
powers of states.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:37:05 -0500, David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

And a loss for dwarves in failing, overpopulated shit hole states.

[Rudy Canoza]

No. States don't have "rights" and the electoral college has nothing to do with
federalism. It also does nothing to promote any legitimate interests of people
living in smaller states. They have no "right" to disproportionately greater
electoral power. I have demolished this "big states / small states" bullshit
more times than I can count.

[Rudy Canoza]

No. That is *anti*-republican, scooter.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 9/28/2022 5:37 AM, David Hartung wrote:

I don't think it makes sense for a person in a small state to have her
vote count more than a person in a large state. But that being said, the
much bigger problem is a person in a purple state's vote counts far more
than a person in a red or blue state's vote counts because of the winner
take all rules. As I have done in the past, I propose the following changes:

1) Keep the electoral votes as is (thus keeping smaller-state voters
having greater weight than larger-state voters) but get rid of the
electors. Instead, the math is automatic.

2) Divvy up each state's electoral votes in proportion to the statewide
popular vote, with a minimum of 20% needed to get any votes and allowing
fractions of electoral votes.

[Blue Lives Matter]

I could actually go along with that... but a Constitutional amendment
to that end isn't likely to happen any time soon.

>2) Divvy up each state's electoral votes in proportion to the statewide
>popular vote, with a minimum of 20% needed to get any votes and allowing
>fractions of electoral votes.

And the states can do that if they choose. Fortunately, it'll take a
Constitutional amendment to force all the states to do it.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

I agree both of my proposals require a constitutional amendment, but
it's *unfortunate* that is not likely to happen. It's good to see you
agree with my first proposal. But it appears you don't like the second
one? If not, why not?

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:42:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Yes I'd oppose it because, if done by all states, it would essentially
elect the President by popular vote. I oppose anything that interferes
with state's rights.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

It would give Wyoming the same greater weight than California as the
current system does.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:05:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Perhaps it would for Wyoming, but not for the so-called purple states.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 8:28 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 5:37 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 9/28/22 05:31, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
>>>> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>>>> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>>>>
>>>> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>>>> million votes, but still "win" the election?
>>>
>>> I call it a win for state's rights and the people of smaller populated
>>> states.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
> I don't think it makes sense for a person in a small state to have her vote
> count more than a person in a large state.

It not only doesn't make sense, it is unjust. There is no valid reason why the
vote of a person in a sparsely populated state *ought* to count more than the
vote of a person in a larger state.

> But that being said, the much bigger
> problem is a person in a purple state's vote counts far more than a person in a
> red or blue state's vote counts because of the winner take all rules. As I have
> done in the past, I propose the following changes:
>
> 1) Keep the electoral votes as is (thus keeping smaller-state voters having
> greater weight than larger-state voters) but get rid of the electors. Instead,
> the math is automatic.
>
> 2) Divvy up each state's electoral votes in proportion to the statewide popular
> vote, with a minimum of 20% needed to get any votes and allowing fractions of
> electoral votes.

Also, and critically important:

3) Remove the ability of state legislatures to determine which candidate gets
electoral votes. States *must* hold popular elections to determine electoral
vote allocation.


But really the electoral college should be abolished. Not a single one of the
arguments in favor of it has any merit. It has *no* merit at all. It is not
necessary *either* for republicanism or federalism. It not only is
undemocratic, it is *anti* democratic, and that's bad and wrong. We *are* a
democracy, and as powerful and important as the presidency is, whether or not
the founders intended it to be that powerful, it is too important not to be
popularly determined. A popularly elected president would in *no* way be
"tyranny of the majority." As it stands, the electoral college occasionally
*produces* tyranny of the minority, and that's bad and wrong.

[Rudy Canoza]

States don't have "rights," and states do not elect the president. *People* in
states vote for electors who elect the president, and it's a bad and wrong system.

[Rudy Canoza]

Of course it would, you fucking idiot.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Why should a purple state get a greater weight than a blue or red state?

[Rudy Canoza]

It would not give "Wyoming" or any other state anything at all. It gives the
*voters* of Wyoming electoral weight to which they are not entitled.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:47:29 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

You seem to be unable to differentiate between a state and people
within the state. I support democracy from the state government on
down. I do not support democracy for the Feds.

I know you'll ask why, so I'll tell you up front:

People are much more free to leave their local government's
jurisdiction, and even their state if they don't approve of the
democratic vote. Leaving the USA is much bigger deal.

[Just Wondering]

> So states have powers not rights. The Tenth Amendment acknowledges
this. Of course the EC involves powers of the states. It was the
states not the people who adopted the Constitution (its preamble
notwithstanding). In doing so, the states reserved to themselves
the power to elect the President. The EC is the means by which
the states exercise that power.

[Mitchell Holman]

Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:th1p7k$csqh$1...@dont-email.me:

If an EC is a "cure" for smaller
states why isn't it a "cure" for
smaller counties? The counties of
eastern Washington resent Seattle
dominating the state legislature.
The counties of eastern Oregon
resent Portland dominating their
state legislature. Rural Minnesota
counties resent Minneapolis dominating
their state policies.

If the EC is such a great help for
smaller jurisdictions in national
elections why don't states apply it to
state elelctions?

[Just Wondering]

On 9/28/2022 10:39 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> ... states do not elect the president.  *People* in states

> vote for electors who elect the president

Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors, so it's
actually the state legislatures who choose the President. It just so
happens that every state legislature has decided to let its citizens
choose those electors by popular vote. A legislature could just as
well choose its electors directly by vote of the legislature itself,
or by a roll of dice, or by selling elector seats to the highest
bidders. But constitutionally speaking, its' the state legislators,
not the people, who through the EC elect the President.

[Just Wondering]

So you keep saying but you never do a thing about it, you impotent
wizened little troll.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 11:00 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy
rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 9/28/2022 8:21 AM, AlleyCat wrote:
>> On 9/28/2022 3:31 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
>>>> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>>>> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>>>>
>>>> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>>>> million votes, but still "win" the election?
>>>
>>> I call it a win for state's rights and
>>
>> States don't have "rights," and the electoral college has nothing to do with
>> powers of states.
>
> So states have powers not rights.  The Tenth Amendment acknowledges
> this.  Of course the EC involves powers of the states.

No, Francis, it does not.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy

rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 9/28/2022 10:39 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ...  states do not elect the president.   *People* in states
>> vote for electors who elect the president
>
> Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors,

And they have *all* chosen to hold popular elections for electors, Francis. The
people in states elect the electors, Francis, you dumb cunt.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 11:14 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy

rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

False, Francis, you stupid cunt.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 11:39:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:

>> So you keep saying but you never do a thing about it
>

>False, Francis, you superior being.

You've never done anything about it. You know this.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 11:38:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:

>And they have *all* chosen to hold popular elections for electors, Francis. The
>people in states elect the electors, Francis, you dumb cunt.

ROFLMAO

I've never voted for an elector in my life, you stupid dwarf.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

OK, But, you take it to the extreme of not having democracy at all at
the federal level.

That being said, your answer did not explain why purple states should be
given greater weight than blue or red states.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

If a state ever went back to anything but the people electing the
electors, that state's legislators would be thrown out by the people. We
have de facto election of the president by the people - just in a weird
way that gives the people in smaller and (especially) swing states a
greater say.

[Rudy Canoza]

A greater say that they do not deserve

[Just Wondering]

So you say, yet all you do is whine about it. If you don't like it,
quitcherbitchin, go out and work to get a constitutional amendment
passed to change the system. Let us know how that works out for you.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 1:50 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip

chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 9/28/2022 2:46 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 9/28/2022 1:43 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>>> On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>>>> On 9/28/2022 10:39 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...  states do not elect the president.   *People* in states
>>>>> vote for electors who elect the president
>>>>
>>>> Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors, so it's
>>>> actually the state legislatures who choose the President.  It just so
>>>> happens that every state legislature has decided to let its citizens
>>>> choose those electors by popular vote.  A legislature could just as
>>>> well choose its electors directly by vote of the legislature itself,
>>>> or by a roll of dice, or by selling elector seats to the highest
>>>> bidders.  But constitutionally speaking, its' the state legislators,
>>>> not the people, who through the EC elect the President.
>>>
>>> If a state ever went back to anything but the people electing the electors,
>>> that state's legislators would be thrown out by the people. We have de facto
>>> election of the president by the people - just in a weird way that gives the
>>> people in smaller and (especially) swing states a greater say.
>>>
>>
>> A greater say that they do not deserve
>
> So you say, yet all you do is whine about it.

False.

> If you don't like it,

The problem, Francis, is that you like it and think it's good. It's not good,
Francis, nor is it good that the president can be elected with fewer popular
votes than another candidate. Those features are bad, Francis, you stupid cunt.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 13:38:10 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

It's democracy, but not as pure a democracy as I prefer in the states
and local government.

>That being said, your answer did not explain why purple states should be
>given greater weight than blue or red states.

The majority voters in a purple state do not have the same weight as
they would in a state that's more red or blue.

[Blue Lives Matter]

IMHO, each state should have the same voting power, IOW, each state
gets one vote. The only place where the population is a factor is the
House.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The purple state voters get a greater weight.

Consider two states: Purple and Red. Both have 10 electoral votes and
2.7 million voters. In Purple, the vote was 1.4 to 1.3 million. In Red,
it was 2.0 to 0.7 million. Thus, 1.4 million winning votes produced 10
electoral votes in Purple (or 10/1,400,000 electors votes per winning
vote), while 2.0 million votes produced 10 electoral votes in Red (or
10/2,000,000 electors per winning vote).

The relative weights of a winning vote in Purple versus Red is thus
10/1,400,000 divided by 10/2,000,000 - or about 1.43. Purple's voters
were given about 43% more weight than Red's.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

This is wildly anti-majoritarian. A vote in Wyoming would have 67 times
the weight of a vote in California.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

This is an inane argument. Stick to the merits, not whether one's
position can be put into effect.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:12:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

I was, of course, addrssing your proposal of assigning electoral votes
according to the voters votes.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:15:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Indeed... but the states have equal power..

[Josh Rosenbluth]

In that case, voters in Purple states get the same weight of voters in
Red (or Blue) states (as it should be). In my example, the 1.4 million
votes garnered 5.19 EC votes in Purple (5.19/1,400,000 electors per
vote) while the 2.0 million votes garnered 7.41 EC votes in Red
(7.41/2,000,000).

The relative weight of Purple to Red is now 5.19/1,400,000 divided by
7.41/2,000,000, or 1.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

That's fucked up when it comes to electing the president.

[Rudy Canoza]

"States" don't have any electoral power, nor should they. *People* in states
have electoral power, and everyone's vote should be weighted exactly the same.
That is best achieved by a direct popular vote for president.

[Just Wondering]

On 9/28/2022 2:54 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 1:50 PM, Just Wondering wrote:>

>> On 9/28/2022 2:46 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2022 1:43 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>>>> On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/2022 10:39 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...  states do not elect the president.   *People* in states
>>>>>> vote for electors who elect the president
>>>>>
>>>>> Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors, so it's
>>>>> actually the state legislatures who choose the President.  It just so
>>>>> happens that every state legislature has decided to let its citizens
>>>>> choose those electors by popular vote.  A legislature could just as
>>>>> well choose its electors directly by vote of the legislature itself,
>>>>> or by a roll of dice, or by selling elector seats to the highest
>>>>> bidders.  But constitutionally speaking, its' the state legislators,
>>>>> not the people, who through the EC elect the President.
>>>>
>>>> If a state ever went back to anything but the people electing the
>>>> electors, that state's legislators would be thrown out by the
>>>> people. We have de facto election of the president by the people -
>>>> just in a weird way that gives the people in smaller and
>>>> (especially) swing states a greater say.
>>>
>>> A greater say that they do not deserve
>>

>> So you say, yet all you do is whine about it. If you don't like it,
>> quitcherbitchin, go out and work to get a constitutional amendment
>> passed to change the system. Let us know how that works out for you.
>

> The problem is that you like it and think it's good.  It's not
> good, nor is it good that the president can be elected with

> fewer popular votes than another candidate.  Those features are bad

So for you it's just more bitching and no action. Got it.

[Just Wondering]

It's not an argument, it's a challenge, a call to action.
It's funny that you can't tell the difference.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 7:20 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip

chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 9/28/2022 2:54 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> On 9/28/2022 1:50 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>>> On 9/28/2022 2:46 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/2022 1:43 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>>>>> On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM,  Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 10:39 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...  states do not elect the president.   *People* in states
>>>>>>> vote for electors who elect the president
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors, so it's
>>>>>> actually the state legislatures who choose the President.  It just so
>>>>>> happens that every state legislature has decided to let its citizens
>>>>>> choose those electors by popular vote.  A legislature could just as
>>>>>> well choose its electors directly by vote of the legislature itself,
>>>>>> or by a roll of dice, or by selling elector seats to the highest
>>>>>> bidders.  But constitutionally speaking, its' the state legislators,
>>>>>> not the people, who through the EC elect the President.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a state ever went back to anything but the people electing the electors,
>>>>> that state's legislators would be thrown out by the people. We have de
>>>>> facto election of the president by the people - just in a weird way that
>>>>> gives the people in smaller and (especially) swing states a greater say.
>>>>
>>>> A greater say that they do not deserve
>>>
>>> So you say, yet all you do is whine about it.  If you don't like it,
>>> quitcherbitchin, go out and work to get a constitutional amendment
>>> passed to change the system.  Let us know how that works out for you.
>>
>> The problem is that you like it and think it's good.  It's not good, nor is it
>> good that the president can be elected with fewer popular votes than another
>> candidate.  Those features are bad
>
> So for you it's

more pointing out how wrong you are.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 7:22 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip

chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 9/28/2022 5:16 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>> On 9/28/2022 1:50 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>>> On 9/28/2022 2:46 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/2022 1:43 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>>>>> On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 10:39 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...  states do not elect the president.   *People* in states
>>>>>>> vote for electors who elect the president
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors, so it's
>>>>>> actually the state legislatures who choose the President.  It just so
>>>>>> happens that every state legislature has decided to let its citizens
>>>>>> choose those electors by popular vote.  A legislature could just as
>>>>>> well choose its electors directly by vote of the legislature itself,
>>>>>> or by a roll of dice, or by selling elector seats to the highest
>>>>>> bidders.  But constitutionally speaking, its' the state legislators,
>>>>>> not the people, who through the EC elect the President.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a state ever went back to anything but the people electing the electors,
>>>>> that state's legislators would be thrown out by the people. We have de
>>>>> facto election of the president by the people - just in a weird way that
>>>>> gives the people in smaller and (especially) swing states a greater say.
>>>>
>>>> A greater say that they do not deserve
>>>
>>> So you say, yet all you do is whine about it.  If you don't like it,
>>> quitcherbitchin, go out and work to get a constitutional amendment
>>> passed to change the system.  Let us know how that works out for you.
>>
>> This is an inane argument.
>
> It's not an argument, it's a challenge

No, Francis.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

It's a bullshit red herring because you disagree with Rudy but won't
make a counter argument.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 8:45 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 7:22 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>> On 9/28/2022 5:16 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>>> On 9/28/2022 1:50 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>>>> On 9/28/2022 2:46 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/2022 1:43 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

Francis won't attempt to make a case as to why the electoral college is a good
thing because he knows he can't. All he has are the same old stale,
discredited, debunked lies about "big states," "multi-regional appeal," etc.,
and none of those hold even a drop of water. The fact is, the only reason
Francis *really* supports it is because he's a Republiscum/QAnon, and he knows
that the electoral college is the only way a non-incumbent Republiscum/QAnon
candidate can win the presidency. That's all he cares about is winning, no
matter how unethical the system is.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:44:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

It's the way the USA was created. Each state votes "yes" or "no."

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:43:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Nope, under your proposal the majority only get half as many EC votes
as they would under winner take all.

[Blue Lives Matter]

You liberals are always arguing to convince others to go along with
the changes you want. What you seem to want is an argument or an
explanation as to why others don't go along. The "counter argument" is
simply the refusal to go along.

With Rudy, an eyeroll and a walk away is my SOP.

[David Hartung]

No, it is a valid challenge.

Since 2000 the left has been complaining about the Electoral College,
but all they do is to complain. As of this point there has been no
effort to change the Constitution.

[David Hartung]

Out of curiosity, why s it a bad thing to protect the influence of the
smaller states?

[David Hartung]

Why?

[David Hartung]

Why?

[David Hartung]

On 9/28/22 11:35, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> On 9/28/2022 8:28 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 9/28/2022 5:37 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 9/28/22 05:31, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>

>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
>>>>> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>>>>> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is
>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the
>>>>>>> minority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>>>>> million votes, but still "win" the election?
>>>>
>>>> I call it a win for state's rights and the people of smaller populated
>>>> states.
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>
>> I don't think it makes sense for a person in a small state to have her
>> vote count more than a person in a large state.
>

> It not only doesn't make sense, it is unjust.

Why?

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
news:Ds2ZK.100175$ocy7....@fx38.iad...
> On 9/28/2022 2:46 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> On 9/28/2022 1:43 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/2022 10:39 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... states do not elect the president. *People* in states
>>>>> vote for electors who elect the president
>>>>
>>>> Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors, so it's
>>>> actually the state legislatures who choose the President. It just so
>>>> happens that every state legislature has decided to let its citizens
>>>> choose those electors by popular vote. A legislature could just as
>>>> well choose its electors directly by vote of the legislature itself,
>>>> or by a roll of dice, or by selling elector seats to the highest
>>>> bidders. But constitutionally speaking, its' the state legislators,
>>>> not the people, who through the EC elect the President.
>>>
>>> If a state ever went back to anything but the people electing the
>>> electors, that state's legislators would be thrown out by the people. We
>>> have de facto election of the president by the people - just in a weird
>>> way that gives the people in smaller and (especially) swing states a
>>> greater say.
>>>
>>

>> A greater say that they do not deserve
>
> So you say, yet all you do is whine about it. If you don't like it,
> quitcherbitchin, go out and work to get a constitutional amendment
> passed to change the system. Let us know how that works out for you.

I'm sure he will claim it is the 9-3/4 Amendment that only he can see.

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message

news:Gj7ZK.71955$Ve%5.6...@fx01.iad...

Once again we see Rudy's utter inability to read for comprehension and then
he wonders why we don't buy into his assertions about things he's claimed to
have read.

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message

news:K90ZK.203503$elEa....@fx09.iad...
> On 9/28/2022 10:56 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> On 9/28/2022 9:05 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2022 8:53 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:42:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/28/2022 8:38 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:28:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 5:37 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/28/22 05:31, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
>>>>>>>>>> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>>>>>>>>>> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is
>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> minority.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>>>>>>>>>> million votes, but still "win" the election?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I call it a win for state's rights and the people of smaller
>>>>>>>>> populated
>>>>>>>>> states.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it makes sense for a person in a small state to have
>>>>>>> her

>>>>>>> vote count more than a person in a large state. But that being said,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> much bigger problem is a person in a purple state's vote counts far

>>>>>>> more

>> It would not give "Wyoming" or any other state anything at all. It gives
>> the *voters* of Wyoming electoral weight to which they are not entitled.

Strange the Constitution says they are utterly entitled to those votes and
it was intentionally set up by the Founding Fathers to do so.

Who are you to tell us they aren't so entitled?



>>
> So you keep saying but you never do a thing about it, you impotent wizened
> little troll.

Of course, all he can do is whine.

[Rudy Canoza]

The *only* things on which each state gets one vote are:

1. Ratification of amendments to the Constitution
2. Votes in the House in the event no candidate for president
wins a majority of electoral votes

In the operation of the electoral college, each state does *not* get one vote,
nor should they. "States" don't elect the president.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/29/2022 2:17 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 9/28/22 22:45, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>> On 9/28/2022 7:22 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>>> On 9/28/2022 5:16 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>>>> On 9/28/2022 1:50 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>>>>> On 9/28/2022 2:46 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 1:43 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

It is not a challenge. Like you, Francis wants to keep the electoral college,
but he can't give any reasons to support it that haven't already been demolished.

[Rudy Canoza]

Sorry, you have to give a reason why it is a good thing to give *voters* in
small states excessive electoral power.

It's not a good thing. Voters in smaller states do not deserve extra electoral
college power.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/29/2022 2:18 AM, David Hartung wrote:

Sealioning (also written sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or
harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for
evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and
sincerity. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage
in debate".

The troll feigns ignorance and politeness, so that if the target is provoked
into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the aggrieved party.
Sealioning can be performed by a single troll or by multiple ones acting in
concert. The technique of sealioning has been compared to the Gish gallop and
metaphorically described as a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Arp! Arp! Arp!

[Rudy Canoza]

No. You have to say why they should.

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

No, scooter.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, scooter.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 07:19:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:

>> Out of curiosity, why s it a bad thing to protect the influence of the smaller
>> states?
>
>Sorry, you have to give a reason why it is a good thing to give *voters* in
>small states excessive electoral power.
>
>It's not a good thing. Voters in smaller states do not deserve extra electoral
>college power.

Rudy can't answer. LOL

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 9/29/2022 2:18 AM, David Hartung wrote:

One person, one vote? You know, a basic pillar of democracy. But, as I
said I am OK with a little extra influence for small states. But 67
times? No Fucking Way.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

WTF? States don't vote "yes" or "no" for the president.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Of course Purple's weight is reduced compared to winner take all. That's
the whole idea (and a damned good one)!

Winner-take-all: Purple gets more weight than Red. That's bad and needs
to change so they get equal weight.

My proposal: Make Purple and Red the same which requires that Purple's
weight be reduced (duh!).

[Rudy Canoza]

They do if the election is thrown to the House when no candidate gets a majority
of electoral votes. But that's bad and wrong.

They also vote yes or no on ratifying amendments to the Constitution, and
Wyoming's vote counts exactly the same as California's. That's probably bad and
wrong as well.

[Rudy Canoza]

The shitbag Hartung is posing the wrong question, as well as shirking his
responsibility. "States" don't have influence. "States" don't elect the
president. It's the *voters* of small states who have entirely unwarranted
excessive influence, and Hartung cannot say why they should.

There is no valid reason for people to have differential weight given to their
vote for president simply based on where they live.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 07:49:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

But they did for the creation of the USA, which was what I was
addressing.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 07:52:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

You haven't convince me...

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:02:05 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:

>They also vote yes or no on ratifying amendments to the Constitution, and
>Wyoming's vote counts exactly the same as California's. That's probably bad and
>wrong as well.

Rudy doesn't know what "United States" means.

What a dumb fuck

[Just Wondering]

Maybe they should. One state, one vote.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <kXKdnb78hK13_6j-...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>> This is wildly anti-majoritarian. A vote in Wyoming would have 67 times
> >>> the weight of a vote in California.
> >>
> >> Indeed...  but the states have equal power..
> >
> > That's fucked up when it comes to electing the president.
>
> Why?

Because people rather complain than make a small change allowed
by the Constitution that would give us effective popular
election. Have the other 48 states also apportion electors based
on the state's election result.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Chen sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Siri Cruise]

In article <kXKdnbz8hK0M_6j-...@giganews.com>,
David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> Since 2000 the left has been complaining about the Electoral College,
> but all they do is to complain. As of this point there has been no
> effort to change the Constitution.

Red herring. It doesn't require changing the Constitution.

[Siri Cruise]

> >>>>>>> Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors, so it's
> >>>>>>> actually the state legislatures who choose the President.  It

And the other 48 states can do proportional electors.

> >>>>>>> choose those electors by popular vote.  A legislature could just as
> >>>>>>> well choose its electors directly by vote of the legislature itself,

Try it.

> >>>>>> If a state ever went back to anything but the people electing the
> >>>>>> electors, that state's legislators would be thrown out by the
> >>>>>> people. We have de facto election of the president by the people -
> >>>>>> just in a weird way that gives the people in smaller and
> >>>>>> (especially) swing states a greater say.

Bullshit. It's because 48 states have winner take all, but all 50
states can use proportional. Each elector represents
approximately the same number of people in each state. There's a
slight discrepancy but I have been told this has never been
signficant.

> >>>> So you say, yet all you do is whine about it.  If you don't like it,
> >>>> quitcherbitchin, go out and work to get a constitutional amendment
> >>>> passed to change the system.  Let us know how that works out for you.

No constitutional amendment is necessary for all states use
proportional electors.

> Since 2000 the left has been complaining about the Electoral College,
> but all they do is to complain. As of this point there has been no
> effort to change the Constitution.

Who does voter registration and elections and vote counting
without EC?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/29/2022 2:17 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 9/28/22 22:45, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>> On 9/28/2022 7:22 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2022 5:16 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/2022 1:50 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/2022 2:46 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 1:43 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 10:39 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...  states do not elect the president.   *People* in states
>>>>>>>>> vote for electors who elect the president
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors, so it's

>>>>>>>> actually the state legislatures who choose the President.  It just so
>>>>>>>> happens that every state legislature has decided to let its citizens

>>>>>>>> choose those electors by popular vote.  A legislature could just as
>>>>>>>> well choose its electors directly by vote of the legislature itself,

>>>>>>>> or by a roll of dice, or by selling elector seats to the highest
>>>>>>>> bidders.  But constitutionally speaking, its' the state legislators,
>>>>>>>> not the people, who through the EC elect the President.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If a state ever went back to anything but the people electing the
>>>>>>> electors, that state's legislators would be thrown out by the people. We
>>>>>>> have de facto election of the president by the people - just in a weird
>>>>>>> way that gives the people in smaller and (especially) swing states a
>>>>>>> greater say.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> A greater say that they do not deserve
>>>>>

>>>>> So you say, yet all you do is whine about it.  If you don't like it,
>>>>> quitcherbitchin, go out and work to get a constitutional amendment
>>>>> passed to change the system.  Let us know how that works out for you.
>>>>

>>>> This is an inane argument.
>>>
>>> It's not an argument, it's a challenge, a call to action.
>>> It's funny that you can't tell the difference.
>>

>> It's a bullshit red herring because you disagree with Rudy but won't make a
>> counter argument.
>
> No, it is a valid challenge.

No, it's bullshit. It is not any kind of challenge at all.

>
> Since 2000 the left has been complaining about the Electoral College,

Right-thinking people have always complained about the electoral college. It's
a bad and wrong method of electing the president. It gives voters in small
backward shithole states excessive electoral weight they do not deserve. It
also leads on occasion to a candidate winning the office having received fewer
votes than another candidate. That is objectively bad and wrong, and amounts to
tyranny of the minority. No other office in the country is filled that way, nor
should it be.

You keep posing a really stupid shit-4-braincell question. You keep asking why
shouldn't the residents of small backward shithole states be given extra
electoral weight. You have the burden of showing why they ought to have that
extra weight. You can't, and you know you can't.

Suppose a line were drawn down the middle of your street, and people on your
side of the street each got one vote for mayor, and people on the other side
from you each got 1.5 or 2 votes. Would you find that tolerable? Answer the
fucking question, yes or no.

Here's another question you can't answer. The swing states flip-flop back and
forth from one election to another, mostly because a few tens of thousands of
stupid fucking deplorables in them don't know what they're doing about anything.
Now suppose all but one swing state, let's say Ohio, become reliably red or
blue. And let's further say that in Ohio, all but 10,000 voters become
committed Republiscums/QAnon or Democrats, and that they are pretty evenly
split. Now in some presidential election, the candidate of one party wins a
sizable majority of the popular vote in the other 49 states, 55% to 45%, but
those states are split roughly 50-50 as to the electoral vote, and neither
candidate has a majority of the electoral vote. The electoral votes of Ohio
will determine the presidency. In Ohio itself the votes of all but those 10,000
fucking deplorables — goddamned fucking unemployable fentanyl addicts — are
split 50-50. So whichever way the 10,000 mental defectives irrationally swing
in this election will determine the presidency. How is that good and just?
Answer: it *isn't* good and just. It's bad and wrong, and you can't defend it.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:mjdbjhhliqsddgap7...@4ax.com...

Question.. is Rudy really stating that some votes should count more than
other votes?

That one vote shouldn't have the exact same value as the vote of someone
else?

Certainly sounds like it.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in

message news:rtabjhp68g3mc1ftc...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 07:19:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:
>
>>> Out of curiosity, why s it a bad thing to protect the influence of the
>>> smaller
>>> states?
>>
>>Sorry, you have to give a reason why it is a good thing to give *voters*
>>in
>>small states excessive electoral power.

They don't. They have exactly the same power to over their electoral vote as
the voters in other states have over their electoral votes.

>>It's not a good thing. Voters in smaller states do not deserve extra
>>electoral
>>college power.

Sure it is, because a Republic has been shown time and time again to be a
bet option that a Democracy.

Which is why the United States was established as a Republic rather than a
Democracy...

> Rudy can't answer. LOL

Of course not.. He can only restate his talking points because that's all
he's got. No understanding, no reasoning, and certainly no logic.

He just stomps his widdle feet and screams "Does to" as you try to explain
that's not how the country works.

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message

news:b9jZK.208118$BQA7....@fx41.iad...

Oh, crap Rudy is going to blow a gasket when he reads that.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, scooter, debunking that really shitty idea didn't even cause me to break a
sweat.

[David Hartung]

On 9/29/22 11:08, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <kXKdnbz8hK0M_6j-...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since 2000 the left has been complaining about the Electoral College,
>> but all they do is to complain. As of this point there has been no
>> effort to change the Constitution.
>
> Red herring. It doesn't require changing the Constitution.

The College can only be eliminated with a constitutional amendment.

[David Hartung]

Had your candidate won in either 2000 or 2016 by winning the electoral
vote while "losing" the popular vote, you would be defending the College.

[Rudy Canoza]

Implementing the National Popular Vote compact does not require an amendment.

[Rudy Canoza]

My candidate was the Libertarian, who was not going to win either the popular
vote or the electoral college vote.

[David Hartung]

On 9/29/22 09:19, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 9/29/2022 2:18 AM, David Hartung wrote:

>> On 9/28/22 18:15, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2022 2:01 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 13:43:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 10:39 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...  states do not elect the president.   *People* in states
>>>>>>> vote for electors who elect the president
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors, so it's
>>>>>> actually the state legislatures who choose the President.  It just so
>>>>>> happens that every state legislature has decided to let its citizens
>>>>>> choose those electors by popular vote.  A legislature could just as
>>>>>> well choose its electors directly by vote of the legislature itself,
>>>>>> or by a roll of dice, or by selling elector seats to the highest
>>>>>> bidders.  But constitutionally speaking, its' the state legislators,
>>>>>> not the people, who through the EC elect the President.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a state ever went back to anything but the people electing the
>>>>> electors, that state's legislators would be thrown out by the
>>>>> people. We
>>>>> have de facto election of the president by the people - just in a
>>>>> weird
>>>>> way that gives the people in smaller and (especially) swing states a
>>>>> greater say.
>>>>

>>>> IMHO, each state should have the same voting power, IOW, each state
>>>> gets one vote. The only place where the population is a factor is the
>>>> House.
>>>
>>> This is wildly anti-majoritarian. A vote in Wyoming would have 67
>>> times the weight of a vote in California.
>>

>> Out of curiosity, why s it a bad thing to protect the influence of the
>> smaller states?
>
> Sorry, you have to give a reason why it is a good thing to give *voters*
> in small states excessive electoral power.

Sorry, but no I do not.

> It's not a good thing.  Voters in smaller states do not deserve extra
> electoral college power.

Yet you can never explain why that is.

[David Hartung]

That is obvious.

[David Hartung]

Which is likely one reason why the Founders set up a republic,

[Rudy Canoza]

Yeah, you do.

>> It's not a good thing.  Voters in smaller states do not deserve extra
>> electoral college power.
>
> Yet you can never explain why that is.

I have fully explained it. It badly violates fundamental principles of
political equality that are a bedrock of the United States. Among people who
are eligible to vote, no one's vote should be given any more weight than any
other voter's vote.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/29/2022 2:23 PM, David Hartung wrote:

That is obviously a lie.

You can't support your position. That is obvious.

[Rudy Canoza]

We are a democracy as well, as all educated persons understand the term. We are
a democracy. Get over it.

Whenever voters voted, the founders absolutely intended that each person's vote
count equally, *except* in their fucked-up electoral college system.

[David Hartung]

On 9/29/22 09:19, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> On 9/29/2022 2:19 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 9/28/22 19:53, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2022 4:37 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:15:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

>>>> Indeed...  but the states have equal power..
>>>

>>> "States" don't have any electoral power, nor should they.
>>
>> Why?
>
> No.  You have to say why they should.

A sure sign that you cannot answer the question.