Hey Bernie, you only THOUGHT you won New Hampshire........

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hi...rs-after-loss/

Hey, you naive ole fool. Guess what. Just because you trounced that lying Bitch Hillary at the polls by over 20 points, does NOT mean you won the New Hampshire Primary.

See, the Democrats have a system that insures that their anointed candidate will win, no matter what the voters say.

How are all of your little "Bums for Bernie" going to take this? Do they see all of that "free" shit you've been promising sipping away.

Welcome to Democrat Party Politics.

It's definitely disturbing and should be done away with.

However, I feel the same way about the electoral college as well. The election of the president should be based on the direct vote. The fact that it is possible for one candidate to win the popular vote, but not be the president, is messed up in the same way.

They were among the 380-390 "superdelegates" she already had committed around the country. So she was "ahead" of Burn-Your-Money before Iowa even.

That's as good a reason as any for an indictment. Soon. Somewhere in the "fine print" and "off the cuff" remarks was an assurance that she would not be indicted, because she didn't do anything wrong.

the little socialists who voted for bern, and bern himself, are getting a little taste of socialism, that's all

as far as the electoral college, its fine just as it is

we have a republic not a mobocracy, at least not yet, but the dims are wanting one

the electoral college is similar to the senate, respectful of the individual states

without the electoral college, some small states would have no say in the presidential election at all

federalism would be greatly damaged, ever more power would devolve to the central government

large urban areas would be where the candidates would concentrate, it would be all about getting out the most votes for the most promises where the population centers are. i think it would increase corruption, as if that were possible

the little socialists who voted for bern, and bern himself, are getting a little taste of socialism, that's all

as far as the electoral college, its fine just as it is

we have a republic not a mobocracy, at least not yet, but the dims are wanting one Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I said nothing about a direct democracy, just a direct election of the one representative who is not directly elected.

the electoral college is similar to the senate, respectful of the individual states

Yes, and disrespectful to the individual. This argument made a lot more sense when we were still disparate collection of states. . .which ended in the 1800's. Now, not so much.

without the electoral college, some small states would have no say in the presidential election at all

And now, individuals from states which are solidly blue/red, that give all the electors to one candidate, who would vote red/blue have no say in the election. While if we did a direct election, everyone individual in a small state would have the same exact say as everyone in a large state. Ah, equality!

federalism would be greatly damaged, ever more power would devolve to the central government

You'll have to explain this. I don't see how a direct election of the president would change the powers of the executive branch, let alone the whole federal government.

large urban areas would be where the candidates would concentrate, it would be all about getting out the most votes for the most promises where the population centers are. i think it would increase corruption, as if that were possible

And now politicians focus their efforts on small states and swing states. It didn't solve the problem of concentrating on particular areas, it just switched it from focusing on the majority of Americans, to the people in swing states. I would much rather the president have to appeal to most Americans, rather than the just to Americans in swing states.

I said nothing about a direct democracy, just a direct election of the one representative who is not directly elected. the direct election of the president is an aspect of a direct democracy and who said you said anything, but now that you mention it, it is an aspect of what you did say

Yes, and disrespectful to the individual. This argument made a lot more sense when we were still disparate collection of states. . .which ended in the 1800's. Now, not so much. an individuals vote is worth more under the electoral system than not. In a direct election, the candidate needs one more than half of the total votes cast. so lets say theres 100 million voters and your one vote is worth 1 in 100 million. In a divided election (50 separate elections), a candidate needs one more than half of the votes in only part of the nation, therefore one's vote is more powerful as it is compared to fewer needed votes to garner the electoral votes in that state. fewer votes needed to win equates to a single vote being more powerful


And now, individuals from states which are solidly blue/red, that give all the electors to one candidate, who would vote red/blue have no say in the election. While if we did a direct election, everyone individual in a small state would have the same exact say as everyone in a large state. Ah, equality! that's tantamount to saying if you vote for the loser you had no say. your point about small state voters and large state voters only under a direct election having the same say loses me, in states with equal or near equal amounts of voters, it is the same, in small states a vote actually has more worth, although the electoral college system re-dilutes it and it reverts to the mean. In an electoral college system minorities have, or can have, more say than in a direct election as concentrations of a people can affect elections much more easily.

You'll have to explain this. I don't see how a direct election of the president would change the powers of the executive branch, let alone the whole federal government. its simple enough, the less power a state has the more the central government has. A president (or his party) wouldn't be as beholden to a state or worried about some individual state for, say, in their executive orders or in any other decision. just think about senators from some small state or potentially any state trying to influence the president concerning something affecting their state, good luck with that

And now politicians focus their efforts on small states and swing states. It didn't solve the problem of concentrating on particular areas, it just switched it from focusing on the majority of Americans, to the people in swing states. I would much rather the president have to appeal to most Americans, rather than the just to Americans in swing states. Swing states have changed and can change much more readily than large population centers
Originally Posted by eatfibo

see above

James Madison, not that most dims care, said that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it "sacrifices to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison had a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

You fuckers got nothing better to moan about?

You knew the answer before asking the question.

That makes you stupid, especially LLephantMan, who supports Citizens United but wants indictments over this. And everything else.

Don't bitch if you can't pitch.

the direct election of the president is an aspect of a direct democracy function Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Not necessarily. But it is besides the point anyway, we already have "direct democracy" for all of our other federal representatives. So it obviously not a violation of our representative democracy to do.

an individuals vote is worth more under the electoral system than not. In a direct election, the candidate needs one more than half of the total votes cast. so lets say theres 100 million voters and your one vote is worth 1 in 100 million. In a divided election (50 separate elections), a candidate needs one more than half of the votes in only part of the nation, therefore one's vote is more powerful as it is compared to fewer needed votes to garner the electoral votes in that state. fewer votes needed to win equates to a single vote being more powerful

Sure, a single vote might be more powerful, for the individuals who voted for the candidate who ended up getting all of the electors in their state. But the individual vote was completely taken away from the people who, despite potentially getting nearly 50% of the vote, got no electors in their state.

that's tantamount to saying if you vote for the loser you had no say.

It was your point, I just turned it around on you. Using your rebuttal, if small states don't get a say, then it is tantamount to saying that if you don't vote for the winner, you have no say.

in small states a vote actually has more worth.In an electoral college system minorities have, or can have, more say than in a direct election as concentrations of a people can affect elections much more easily.

Exactly! Their votes have more worth than mine. Mine is going to get completely discarded, while theirs will get amplified. I don't find this system to be fair to the individuals of this nation.

its simple enough, the less power a state has the more the central government has. A president (or his party) wouldn't be as beholden to a state or worried about some individual state for, say, in their executive orders or in any other decision. just think about senators from some small state trying to influence the president concerning something affecting their state, good luck with that

Your position is that the states are more important than the individual. I hold the opposite view.

Swing states have changed and can change much more readily than large population centers

This isn't true. The center of the population of the US is constantly shifting, every year. The swing states, not so much.

It is what it is. If the "superdelegates" begin to see they were "hood-winked" into believing Hillarious-No-More was "innocent" and a "victim" of those mean-ole RightWingers AGAIN!!!! ... then you might see some defection and reneging .....

History has a bad habit of repeating itself with some people ...

https://thoughtmerchant.wordpress.co...uperdelegates/

Super Delagates are the result of the mantra that says......"Party first, Country second".

Not necessarily. But it is besides the point anyway, we already have "direct democracy" for all of our other federal representatives. So it obviously not a violation of our representative democracy to do.


Sure, a single vote might be more powerful, for the individuals who voted for the candidate who ended up getting all of the electors in their state. But the individual vote was completely taken away from the people who, despite potentially getting nearly 50% of the vote, got no electors in their state.


It was your point, I just turned it around on you. Using your rebuttal, if small states don't get a say, then it is tantamount to saying that if you don't vote for the winner, you have no say.


Exactly! Their votes have more worth than mine. Mine is going to get completely discarded, while theirs will get amplified. I don't find this system to be fair to the individuals of this nation.


Your position is that the states are more important than the individual. I hold the opposite view.


This isn't true. The center of the population of the US is constantly shifting, every year. The swing states, not so much. Originally Posted by eatfibo

I disagree with your assertions and understandings

we dont have a direct democracy election of any elected federal official, we have indirect elections using states as the boundaries for senators and congressional districts for congress. even this protection was further diluted when state legislatures no longer elected senators, the president is the same, with elections held at the state level.

it wasn't my point ever

a vote isnt ultimately worth more as it gets re diluted by the electoral system

my position is that a democracy is not what i wish, and in an electoral college system all are protected, states and individuals, especially those in a minority

some states apportion electoral votes but why should they? the election was lost. its what started this thread, winners becoming losers

it certainly is true swing states have changed and it certainly is true whole rafts of states are changing and have changed. large population centers become larger most times, only case I can think of doing the reverse is Detroit. not sure what the center of population is you refer to

we dont have a direct democracy with any federal elected official, we have indirect elections using states as the boundaries for senators and congressional districts for congress. even this protection was further diluted when state legislatures no longer elected senators, not sure what the center of population is Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You are absolutely wrong. We directly elect everyone in congress, the restriction is that only those whom are represented by the congressmen vote in those elections. My problem is that the president represents everyone and we don't have a direct election for him.

my position is that a democracy is not what i wish, and in an electoral college system all are protected

I don't want a direct democracy either. However, I want our representatives, which most of them already are, to be directly elected. Not decided by some third parties where some people's votes are worth more than others.

You are arguing that the states should have more control over who elects the president than the individuals. Your position is anti-individual and pro-state.

some states apportion electoral votes but why should they? the election was lost. its what started this thread, winners becoming losers

This thread started off being about superdelegates, which are something completely different.

it certainly is true swing states have changed and it certainly is true whole rafts of states are changing and have changed. large population centers become larger most times, only case I can think of doing the reverse is Detroit. not sure what the center of population is

Center of population is the "middle spot" of the total population.

The current President doesn't represent "everyone" ... not even close! Hillarious-No-More won't either!

I wondered how long it would take for someone to figure out the super delegate problem. Guess the uptake on this board (for some of us) is quicker than the general press who is either still in the dark or is sworn to silence by the Clinton machine. Oh! You didn't know that Clinton's and the press were tied up together...
Yup, superdelegates were created to defeat another McGovern candidacy. He was so far to the left (today, he would be considered a moderate) that the party created the self correcting super delegate concept. A way for the party elders as it were to correct the mistakes of the rank and file. So now it's on to Las Vegas and the union vote. Still haven't seen any polling on that state.

Of course, we've just lost Carly (condemned by ABC) and Christie if you believe the latest press reports.

Of course, we've just lost Carly (condemned by ABC) and Christie if you believe the latest press reports. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You left out Carson?

There is no way the press was going to allow either a woman or a Black man run against Hillarious-No-More ... now way in Hell ... and as for the former prosecutor who would toss her under the bus in a New Jersey second for lying and criminally handling classified documents ... who was "embraced' by the current President and who "embraced" him ... he was toast right out of the chute!!!!

The supers will probably hold out as long as they can until it gets embarrassing, so they won't have to refund the "gratuity" for committing, or is it a "signing bonus"? Then they can call it a "defense fund"!