The New Huntmastersbbs!


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The New Huntmastersbbs!   » Political Bitch Box   » We need to be careful, Lefties want to rig elections

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: We need to be careful, Lefties want to rig elections
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2

Icon 2 posted March 02, 2019 09:21 AM      Profile for Leonard   Author's Homepage   Email Leonard         Edit/Delete Post 
The latest fad among Liberals is the whining and gnashing of teeth that poor Hillary got more votes than Trump but wasn't elected because of an unfair system-The Electoral College.

As has been said, if the Electoral College were abolished, the candidates would only campaign in California, New York, Texas and Florida...fuck "Flyover Country". Nobody would care what the little unsophisticated people in Kansas wanted. Talk about canceling the whole Middle America and allowing the Bi-Coastal population to elect the Federal government. Sounds fair, they say; one man, one vote. Fuck Lance! Who cares what those clodhoppers think, anyway?

This will allow them to steamroll every Progressive Idea they can dream of, a wishlist. Forget your guns, state rights, the rights of the unborn, packing the Supreme Court and all that quaint stuff. Everything will be decided by our betters, sophisticated and educated and liberal people, the "elites".

Majority Rule is Tyranny of the Minority. Don't ever forget it!
Read what this asshole thinks about our system here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/opinion/the-electoral-college.html

Good hunting. El Bee

--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!

Posts: 26565 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
NVWalt
Knows what it's all about
Member # 375

Icon 1 posted March 03, 2019 02:47 AM      Profile for NVWalt           Edit/Delete Post 
Yep, the brainwashed masses in the west and east will vote for the socialist/communist shitheads and the rest of the conservative real Americans can just go piss up a rope. What those commie bastards won't do to make America as great as the rest of the world that basically is controlled by just a couple people. Can't wait to become just like Cuba and Russia and China and on and on.
The writing has been on the wall for some time now and it is a sorry thing to see. But brainwashing does work wonders doesn't it.

--------------------
I love beautiful women,fine wine and poking dead things with a stick.

Posts: 288 | From: Tellico Plains, TN | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
MI VHNTR
I'm not shaving 'til Obama's gone!
Member # 3370

Icon 1 posted March 03, 2019 06:27 PM      Profile for MI VHNTR   Email MI VHNTR         Edit/Delete Post 
This is why that POS peelosi is pushing gun control too. The democRATS want control the unarmed masses in the same manner that has been used by previous dictators such as hitler, stalin, etc.

--------------------
NRA Patriot Life Member
The Second Amendment isn't about Hunting. It's about Freedom.

Posts: 315 | From: MI | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2

Icon 1 posted March 04, 2019 06:11 AM      Profile for Leonard   Author's Homepage   Email Leonard         Edit/Delete Post 
It could happen. They push us too far, and somebody's liable to respond.

Good hunting. El Bee

--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!

Posts: 26565 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7

Icon 1 posted April 11, 2019 06:13 PM      Profile for Cdog911   Author's Homepage   Email Cdog911         Edit/Delete Post 
And I just now see this. LOL Always knew nobody cared what I thought, but "think" I did and I have the solution.

In fact, we have a regional radio show called "Friendly Fire" where the hosts, a hard-nosed conservative and a brain dead liberal hash out the issues in the news. I was a guest on the show a few years back when their Ass. Police Chief's dog got caught in a 220 coni on public ground and he went on a mission to outlaw conibears. Local conservation people pointed to me as the guy to represent the trappers. Had a good time. (I won and the state took my ideas and made them standard practice now.)

Anyway, the liberal host never misses a chance to push the idea of abolishing the EC despite her co-host's efforts to educate her. Anyway, I know the subject is gonna come up between now and 11/2020 and I had an idea about how to do the EC better. I don't expect it to get any attention, but I sent it to the conservative host as a way of further shutting her down.

Here's the reality of the electoral college. Kansas hasn't voted democrap for POTUS since
'64. I'm a libertarian and, frankly, neither I or the dems has had a voice in electing the president since shortly after I was born. Kansas, like every state but NE and ME, is winner takes all. I agree, that isn't necessarily fair, especially when you consider that under the current system, the coasts with their overwhelmingly / disproportionately concentrated populations just eclipse what we bring to the debate. The EC was a compromise by the Founders between POTUS being elected by Congress, and POTUS being elected by mob rule (national vote/ democracy). The idea was to elect the Pres indirectly in a way that weighted rural votes more fairly with more populated urban states.

Electoral delegates were originally intended to be selected based upon their greater intellect, greater familiarity with the candidates, and greater knowledge of the issues of the day, as opposed to the way we choose them now, based upon party loyalty alone.

So, here's what I suggested. Repeal the current system. Pass new legislation that eliminates the "winner takes all" and mandates that all states follow the same rules. Currently, each state is allowed to award their delegates as they see fit.

Then, rather than electoral delegates being people, each state and DC are given 100 electoral votes, 5100 total. In each state, each percentage point will be awarded for each percent of that state's popular vote. In Kansas, Trump got 58% of the vote, Clinton got 38% and third parties got 4% (100 total). Under this plan, Trump would get 58 electoral votes, Clinton would get 38, and so forth. Every party with votes cast will appear in the final tally. Those who receive <1% would receive a minimum of 1 electoral vote.

Winner is the candidate with the most electoral votes when the dust clears - simple majority - rather than an absolute majority of 50%+1.

We trouble shot the idea. One "problem" we felt might arise was that as much as 80% of registered republicans are actually libertarian, and if they see that their party is actually being counted, they might vote libertarian and give democrats an unintended advantage. I visited with this with the local Libertarian Party leader who liked the proposal and said he felt the dem party may suffer the same phenomenon by seeing attrition to the Green and Socialist Parties for the same reason.

Then only real problem I could see is that too many parties represented in the final vote could dilute the winner's numbers down to the point that POTUS could be elected by an amount well south of 50%, so provisions might be made to reassign votes from any party that ends with <10% equally to the remaining parties until one reaches and surpasses a pre-determined number, i.e., 45%.

This was just a fun project to undertake. Learned a lot about how the EC works, its weaknesses, and how libtards think.

--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.

Posts: 5235 | From: east of Great Falls | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7

Icon 1 posted April 11, 2019 06:21 PM      Profile for Cdog911   Author's Homepage   Email Cdog911         Edit/Delete Post 
What I outlined here is a very condensed version of what I actually sent to the radio show. The final draft filled almost eleven pages, including applying the idea to the elections that occurred in '92, 2000, '04, '12, and '16.

In '92, Bill Clinton would still have won. Clinjton's % went up slightly, as did Dole's, and Perot's went down a bit.

In 2000, W still won, and actually by a larger margin.

In '04, W won again, and again, by a larger margin.

Of great interest is that in '12, Mitt Romney would have beat Obama by a narrow margin of 0.2%.

The '16 election was interesting as well. Despite Hillary's 3m illegal votes in CA that put her that far over the top in the national popular vote, under the proposal, the final tally was a closer representation of the vote when you looked at voting on a county by county basis, and Trump won by an additional 3%.

This proposal complies with the Founders original intent to elect POTUS indirectly rather than by popular vote (mob rule), but by giving each state the equivalent representation in the outcome (like the Senate), each state casts electoral votes consistent with its "political personality" and all parties are fairly represented in the final account.

--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.

Posts: 5235 | From: east of Great Falls | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2

Icon 1 posted April 12, 2019 06:07 AM      Profile for Leonard   Author's Homepage   Email Leonard         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, it sounds reasonable, but also a little radical. Whatever, I am dead set against mob rule, election by popular vote. The Demorats know exactly what they are doing. They are evil bastards, never forget that. Liberals are mentally ill. Never forget that.

Just look at the freak show of Democrat candidates. They can't possibly believe that the radical ideas they are proposing will be acceptable to reasonable people.

I've said it before, the stupidest idea, although most of their proposals are stupid, but the stupidest is allowing 16 year olds to vote. That's just plain crazy. I demand that they go the other way and change eligibility to 21 years. If it's good enough to sign a contract it's good enough to vote in any election, national or otherwise. 18 years old is just not mature enough, admit it was a bad idea and forget it.

Obama's decision to allow anybody under the age of 26 to remain on their parents insurance is the big giveaway. In fact, 26 is probably a good age to be allowed eligible to vote. Sixteen is just a stupid idea, no other word for it.

Good hunting. El Bee

--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!

Posts: 26565 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged


All times are Pacific  
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Huntmasters



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.0