April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

[∞∞∞]

Well if that's the case, we're not following what the founding fathers wanted.

If people here were actually originalists, we'd go back to electing the electors and/or allowing the state legislators to choose them, instead of tying electors to the winner of a popular vote in each state.

We're using the framework that the Founders established but you want to throw the baby out with the bath water because you don't like the results. Ben Franklin, John Adams, etc. were infinitely wiser and more farsighted than Bernie, Warren, Harris, AOC, Trump, etc. They were statesmen (not politicians) who were interested in the best interests of country rather than themselves and their constituencies.

They were philosophers and rebels, and statesmen only to their ideas.

They were not that far-sighted and believed each generation should manifest its own destiny, some believing that blood was required to achieve it. That's not very "stately" or "far-sighted."

The Constitution was written to protect themselves from each other, not outlast them by 200+ years.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Well if that's the case, we're not following what the founding fathers wanted.

If people here were actually originalists, we'd go back to electing the electors and/or allowing the state legislators to choose them, instead of tying electors to the winner of a popular vote in each state.

We're using the framework that the Founders established but you want to throw the baby out with the bath water because you don't like the results. Ben Franklin, John Adams, etc. were infinitely wiser and more farsighted than Bernie, Warren, Harris, AOC, Trump, etc. They were statesmen (not politicians) who were interested in the best interests of country rather than themselves and their constituencies.

Exactly, only SHEEP follow the political parties we have now.

Blood is required to deal with a government like ours who are shills for corporations and only there to enrich themselves.

[CID1990]

Dude, the EC is already warped beyond recognition. I'd even say it's broken.

The system was never meant to be bound by the public; states would select the electors (some through public voting) and electors would select the President. Tying the electors' hands to the public vote completely removes their primary reason for existence.

And state by state, the EC was never meant to be a "winner takes all" thing.

I mean we can talk about Constitutional changes, but if we're going to talk about the EC, it's important to recognize it's already twisted beyond its original intent (for the worst).

Stating otherwise would be disingenuous and misleading.

If we believe in democratic values, the President should be chosen by all citizens equally (regardless of what the founders thought). Small states can continue to have disproportionate power in the Senate.

^^^ latest talking point notwithstanding


The EC will only be muted or tossed out by Constitutional amendment. No back door scheme will work without a plurality of states assenting.

Good luck with that




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Dude, the EC is already warped beyond recognition. I'd even say it's broken.

The system was never meant to be bound by the public; states would select the electors (some through public voting) and electors would select the President. Tying the electors' hands to the public vote completely removes their primary reason for existence.

And state by state, the EC was never meant to be a "winner takes all" thing.

I mean we can talk about Constitutional changes, but if we're going to talk about the EC, it's important to recognize it's already twisted beyond its original intent (for the worst).

Stating otherwise would be disingenuous and misleading.

If we believe in democratic values, the President should be chosen by all citizens equally (regardless of what the founders thought). Small states can continue to have disproportionate power in the Senate.

And state by state, the EC is NOT a “winner take all” thing.

[Pwns]

Sure would be nice if presidential candidates would campaign in the big cities once in a while and not spend so much money and time in Wyoming and Idaho. Stupid EC.

[kalm]

Sure would be nice if presidential candidates would campaign in the big cities once in a while and not spend so much money and time in Wyoming and Idaho. Stupid EC.

Sarcasm detected but huh?

[houndawg]

IMO this would be a "be careful of what you wish for" / law of unintended consequences situation where the "cure" would be worse than the disease in the long run. I have more faith in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers than I do in our current political leaders (from either party) or the mobs who want change.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Well if that's the case, we're not following what the founding fathers wanted.

If people here were actually originalists, we'd go back to electing the electors and/or allowing the state legislators to choose them, instead of tying electors to the winner of a popular vote in each state.

Not to mention standing armies and foreign entanglements.

Which we've been spending Millions per hr. on for two decades.

[Ibanez]

Dude, the EC is already warped beyond recognition. I'd even say it's broken.

The system was never meant to be bound by the public; states would select the electors (some through public voting) and electors would select the President. Tying the electors' hands to the public vote completely removes their primary reason for existence.

And state by state, the EC was never meant to be a "winner takes all" thing.

I mean we can talk about Constitutional changes, but if we're going to talk about the EC, it's important to recognize it's already twisted beyond its original intent (for the worst).

Stating otherwise would be disingenuous and misleading.

If we believe in democratic values, the President should be chosen by all citizens equally (regardless of what the founders thought). Small states can continue to have disproportionate power in the Senate.

You would be crying foul if Virgina voted for Hiliary but the electors voted for someone else.


Deal with it. The EC has something of like a 95% success rate. 5 out of 54(?) elections have been contested.

Instead of changing the system, perhaps we nominate candidates that actually represent the people.

[SuperHornet]

No surprise here, I'm sure, but I've seen nothing on either side to change my mind.

Sarah and Michelle 2020....

[∞∞∞]

Dude, the EC is already warped beyond recognition. I'd even say it's broken.

The system was never meant to be bound by the public; states would select the electors (some through public voting) and electors would select the President. Tying the electors' hands to the public vote completely removes their primary reason for existence.

And state by state, the EC was never meant to be a "winner takes all" thing.

I mean we can talk about Constitutional changes, but if we're going to talk about the EC, it's important to recognize it's already twisted beyond its original intent (for the worst).

Stating otherwise would be disingenuous and misleading.

If we believe in democratic values, the President should be chosen by all citizens equally (regardless of what the founders thought). Small states can continue to have disproportionate power in the Senate.

You would be crying foul if Virgina voted for Hiliary but the electors voted for someone else.


Deal with it. The EC has something of like a 95% success rate. 5 out of 54(?) elections have been contested.

Instead of changing the system, perhaps we nominate candidates that actually represent the people.

Of course I would; I think the EC is a complete bullshit system in any form.

I'm simply saying it's disingenuous to defend it from a Constitutional POV without acknowledging it's not even the same system the Founders intended. If we're gonna praise the Founders for their wisdom, at least say what we have now is nothing like the "protection" they put in place.

[AZGrizFan]

Well if that's the case, we're not following what the founding fathers wanted.

If people here were actually originalists, we'd go back to electing the electors and/or allowing the state legislators to choose them, instead of tying electors to the winner of a popular vote in each state.

Not to mention standing armies and foreign entanglements.

Which we've been spending Millions per hr. on for two decades.

So you don’t think we need a standing army?

[kalm]

Not to mention standing armies and foreign entanglements.

Which we've been spending Millions per hr. on for two decades.

So you don’t think we need a standing army?

I think we do, but...

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. ~ James Madison, Speech before Constitutional Convention (6/29/1787).

[SDHornet]

Well, technically they don't violate the one-person one-vote rulings because those rulings never claimed to be applicable to the Senate and the Electoral College. They were always restrained to state legislatures and to Congressional districts. Any Court, SCOTUS included, wouldn't be able to apply one-person one-vote to the Senate nor Electoral College because the Constitution is pretty clear how they are to work and it's not based on one-person one-vote. The Founders even went further when they drew up Article 5 and entrenched the idea of Senate (and by extension the Electoral College) being unchangeable without the consent of the State itself. Courts can't change it, you have to change the Constitution (and the entrenchment clause in Article 5 makes that Senate change almost rise to a level of unanimous consent if you're going to change the Senate and potentially by extension the Electoral College).

I’ll summarize Ganny here ... since some simple folk who don’t understand how a representative Republic works...

Amend the Constitution or STFU

or put another way -

Find 20 states willing to completely disenfranchise themselves by ratifying such a change - and then have at it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty much.

[dbackjon]

Waaaaaaaaa we cant win so change the rules!

DEAL WITH IT!

You mean like the GOP does with voting restrictions and gerrymandering?

[UNI88]

Waaaaaaaaa we cant win so change the rules!

DEAL WITH IT!

You mean like the GOP does with voting restrictions and gerrymandering?

When did Michael Madigan become a Republican?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Not to mention standing armies and foreign entanglements.

Which we've been spending Millions per hr. on for two decades.

So you don’t think we need a standing army?

No, we're talking about what the founding father's thought.

You need to go to bed or have another drink..

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Waaaaaaaaa we cant win so change the rules!

DEAL WITH IT!

You mean like the GOP does with voting restrictions and gerrymandering?

We need voting restrictions so Mali doesnt run our country

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

Waaaaaaaaa we cant win so change the rules!

DEAL WITH IT!

You mean like the GOP does with voting restrictions and gerrymandering?

Haven't we been over this Jon? Notice how they try to drag every district into the blue area...

[AZGrizFan]

So you don’t think we need a standing army?

I think we do, but...

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. ~ James Madison, Speech before Constitutional Convention (6/29/1787).

Couldn't agree more. It's Orwell's 1984 all over again. Constant war against an unseen enemy to justify their existence.

[dbackjon]

You mean like the GOP does with voting restrictions and gerrymandering?

Haven't we been over this Jon? Notice how they try to drag every district into the blue area...

So we have ONE Democratic state (and I am on record for redistricting MD as well) compared to dozens of GOP controlled states.

Yeah, fine people on both sides

[UNI88]

Haven't we been over this Jon? Notice how they try to drag every district into the blue area...

So we have ONE Democratic state (and I am on record for redistricting MD as well) compared to dozens of GOP controlled states.

Yeah, fine people on both sides

You forgot Madigan and your home state of Illinois.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[mainejeff]

Let's face it. Orange Man is gonna have to call in every Russian favor at his disposal. Putin will give him every favorable chance to win this election but Trump has fucked up just about every thing that's ever been handed to him.

[CID1990]

Let's face it. Orange Man is gonna have to call in every Russian favor at his disposal. Putin will give him every favorable chance to win this election but Trump has **** up just about every thing that's ever been handed to him.

Man your bitterness about the Mueller report is palpable




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mainejeff]

Let's face it. Orange Man is gonna have to call in every Russian favor at his disposal. Putin will give him every favorable chance to win this election but Trump has **** up just about every thing that's ever been handed to him.

Man your bitterness about the Mueller report is palpable




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your blindness to it all is predictable.

[CID1990]

Man your bitterness about the Mueller report is palpable




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your blindness to it all is predictable.

Bless your heart.