27 Jan 21
@dood111 saidHahaha definitely stupidity then. Thanks for clearing that one up.
The pre-election claims of fraud were 100% correct because that's what the dems did.
And Irregardless isn't a word. It's REGARDLESS .
Irregardless is definitely a word you complete tool.
27 Jan 21
@AverageJoe1
Does everyone think it is OK for a cowboy in Wyoming, if the Electoral College is disbanded, to have no representation, no effective vote on his life?
Or, do you think he should have Representation, and have an effective vote?
@averagejoe1 saidhe has 2 senators. Just like a Californian. He has as many representatives as living in the middle of nowhere gives him. He has a voice.
@AverageJoe1
Does everyone think it is OK for a cowboy in Wyoming, if the Electoral College is disbanded, to have no representation, no effective vote on his life?
Or, do you think he should have Representation, and have an effective vote?
What you are actually advocating is that he should have more political power than 5000 californians (or whatever the ratio is now) just because you believe they would support your hateful and outdated agenda.
What you are actually advocating is giving voice to 7 or so swing states rather than the american people. What you are advocating is gerrymandering and voter suppression.
@averagejoe1 saidHe would have the same "representation" and his vote would be just as "effective" as any other voter in the United States if the EC was abolished and replaced by a popular vote system.
@AverageJoe1
Does everyone think it is OK for a cowboy in Wyoming, if the Electoral College is disbanded, to have no representation, no effective vote on his life?
Or, do you think he should have Representation, and have an effective vote?
@kevcvs57 saidIn a way you're right, irregardless was just put in the dictionary in 2020 when Merriam-Webster decided to include it because so many idiots were using it No other dictionary has done so yet.
Hahaha definitely stupidity then. Thanks for clearing that one up.
Irregardless is definitely a word you complete tool.
https://www.wral.com/merriam-webster-has-officially-recognized-irregardless-as-a-word/19356617/
28 Jan 21
@dood111 saidIf you read your own article, you'd know your claim is wrong:
In a way you're right, irregardless was just put in the dictionary in 2020 when Merriam-Webster decided to include it because so many idiots were using it No other dictionary has done so yet.
https://www.wral.com/merriam-webster-has-officially-recognized-irregardless-as-a-word/19356617/
"The key to words like irregardless is the notation made in Merriam-Webster’s entry: nonstandard. It’s Nonstandard English and is not recommended for formal writing. However, it is commonly used in our day-to-day conversations. That’s how it got into dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster’s unabridged edition as far back as 1934, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and the Cambridge Dictionary in the first place."
28 Jan 21
@averagejoe1 saidHe should get ONE vote, like everyone else. Not effectively more, just because he lives out in the middle of nowhere.
@AverageJoe1
Does everyone think it is OK for a cowboy in Wyoming, if the Electoral College is disbanded, to have no representation, no effective vote on his life?
Or, do you think he should have Representation, and have an effective vote?
@no1marauder saidAfter this tumultuous election cycle, it did leave me wondering whether there are some benefits to EC in terms of election integrity. It's not like the Trump team was ever asking for a recount of the vote in North Dakota, for example. If popular vote were the law of the land, we would have seen lawsuits in every single jurisdiction throughout the whole country. 6 dead people maybe voted here, 15 ballots stuffed etc. all trying to add up to 10 million. At least if there are only a handful of "swing states" then we don't have to do recounts everywhere if the election is close.
He would have the same "representation" and his vote would be just as "effective" as any other voter in the United States if the EC was abolished and replaced by a popular vote system.
28 Jan 21
@earl-of-trumps saidHypocrite. It's your boss who was trying to usurp the election.
It *is* a good idea though, if you are a Ruling Democrat.
They're like Royalty, they never give up the throne. and the game is all about POWER, not fairness to all.
28 Jan 21
@averagejoe1 said"Mob rule" is another Republican fairy tale, like "voter fraud" and "Antifa attacked the Capitol".
They have no persuadable reason to disband the Elec College, or the Filibuster, or they would have said it by now in this thread.
\
Last Chance....Why disband them, which sets up mob rule? The little cowboys in Wyoming will have zero voice. Tell us that the cowboy in WY should have no voice.
ONE person, ONE vote. Where does the "mob" come into this?
28 Jan 21
@earl-of-trumps saidYeah, because you find it infinitely easier to just lie.
You really want to try to interpret the spambot? 🤔
yikes.
@no1marauder saidWrong. Google its pros and cons
He would have the same "representation" and his vote would be just as "effective" as any other voter in the United States if the EC was abolished and replaced by a popular vote system.
CA hss 58 electoral votes, middle states average aboujt 6 each
28 Jan 21
@averagejoe1 saidAnd each Representative in the House represents their district.
Wrong. Google its pros and cons
CA hss 58 electoral votes, middle states average aboujt 6 each
Every American has 2 Senators and ONE representative who is their voice in Congress. No one gets more than their share of representation.
If you wanna bitch about CA having 58 electoral votes, then why don't you do the logical thing and move to abolish the Electoral College? As I see it, the MAJOR fault about the Electoral College is the "winner takes all" voting system in most states. So 51% of a state votes for Pol A and 49% vote for Pol B, those 49% (millions of people) are disenfranchised under the "winner takes all" system. Their vote (whether they live in CA or WY) means nothing. Why aren't you crying about THAT?
@averagejoe1 saidSo what? People vote not arbitrarily divided pieces of dirt.
Wrong. Google its pros and cons
CA hss 58 electoral votes, middle states average aboujt 6 each
Your cowboy in Wyoming vote would count the same as any single voter in California or any other state.
28 Jan 21
@wildgrass saidIf the President had been selected by popular vote in 2020, the winner would have been clear on Election night or early morning of the next day.
After this tumultuous election cycle, it did leave me wondering whether there are some benefits to EC in terms of election integrity. It's not like the Trump team was ever asking for a recount of the vote in North Dakota, for example. If popular vote were the law of the land, we would have seen lawsuits in every single jurisdiction throughout the whole country. 6 dead peopl ...[text shortened]... y a handful of "swing states" then we don't have to do recounts everywhere if the election is close.