Will there be mass protests / violence post-election day?

(shakes head). Don't understand- conservatives- say- TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY- DON'T BLAME GOVT., BLAME YOU!!!

Yet, for protests- DON'T TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, LOOTERS- BLAME PROTESTERS.

No.

En. Oh.

Thieves need to take personal responsibility. If thieves let protesters incite them- then thieves have problem.

BLAME SHOOTER, NOT GUN- RIGHT????

BLAME TAXI DRIVER FOR HINCKLEY?? En. Oh.

BLAME TRUMP FOR "F**K YOU, NI**ERS!!"?? Hell. En. Oh.

Non-Fiction Contradiction.

 

.....and I'm talking about personal responsibility. If your actions are leading to people getting hurt and property getting damaged, you should alter your behavior in order to prevent those things. You know, if you are even a halfway decent person.

You talking about Taxi Driver or guns is not relevant to this conversation because I'm not one of those kids on the left that is calling for things to be banned, I'm saying that if those who are creating the atmosphere were decent people, they'd stop creating that atmosphere. Get it now?

 

tRUMP create atmosphere. get rid of tRUMP. problem solved.

 

Only one group has right to protest- Paleoamericans. Tell everyone else- GTFO.

 

LOL, well the difference of course being that he's been elected president. You'll just have to deal with that. It's much easier to just have the people throwing the childish temper tantrums to learn how to deal with disappointment like adults.

 

OK- protest Comcast instead. Terrible service. Or Express Laundry- Lose my favorite Che Rivera shirt.

 

Uh oh. Not Fair!

 

"The election is over."
A rather smug Obama to Senator John McCain. Words to live by.

 

There's nothing unfair about it. The electoral college is set up to protect the small states from being entirely run by the large states. You know, the state version of protecting the 99% from the 1%. I would think those on the left would like that idea.

 

California has 18.3 times (1830%) more electoral votes than Wyoming.

 

I believe you're thinking of the House of Representatives, which actually works this way, except that each congressman really does represent the same number of people. Unless you can tell us what is the logic of making Wyoming votes worth precisely 362% more than CA votes.

 

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. Each state's entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for the Senators.

 

The actual logic of this at the time was to effectively protect slavery, at least, that's how it worked out in practice.

It's still doing a good job protecting the more slavery-sympathetic among us against the will of the majority.

 

Again, I told you, it's in order so that the large states can't completely run things. As it stands you could have over 200 electoral votes winning only 7 states....It's a balance to help prevent the small states from having no voice whatsoever.

Al Gore won only 20 states and that's the closest election we've had since Jimmy Carter won with only 23 states in 1976.

 

Correct.

This is why this country is named "The United STATES of America" instead of NewCalMass.

 

Yes, and the interests and concerns of those living in a state like Wyoming is drastically different from those living in a state like California or a state like Forida or Texas. The electoral college allows those people to still have a voice. Going to a straight up popular vote would completely silence their voice.....which is why Democrats think they want to do that now because in the short term it would benefit them. Kind of like how they worked in the Senate to make it easier for Obama to get appointments confirmed by taking the power of the filibuster away in certain situations.....well that's really going to come back and bite them in the ass now isn't it?

It's for reasons like this that we should avoid short sighted knee jerk reactions like this.

 

And, again, I ask you, what's the logic behind 362%. The ratios for each state are different. I know how they came up with the number 538, but I don't know how to justify that number as fair. Do you?

 

Really? And you think if you're a Republican voting in Washington D.C., your vote has value when D.C. goes 100% blue in the electoral college. . . . I assert that a Republican vote for president in DC 2016 has 0 value, which is the worst possible case.

 

....I just did. The point is giving them a voice, if it was directly proportionate to their share of the population then it would be the same as only having a popular vote. The goal is to give the "little guy" a voice and you are arguing that he doesn't deserve one because others are bigger.

 

Let me ask you the same thing in a different way:
Wyoming and Montana both have 3 electoral votes.
Wyoming has a population of 584,000. Montana has a population of 1,024,000, almost twice as much.
Why should Wyoming and Montana have the same number of electoral votes?