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

Not really true.

I (along with those who established this form of government in the first place) want to protect the individuals living in the different states and give them a voice for the specific issues that they believe are important, you want elections to be determined based on popular election to give a much louder voice to the more densely populated regions while drowning out those in the rural parts of the country. The reason you want to do this is because it would lead to people being elected that you want to be elected. Simple as that.

Again, you don't have to like it. I'm not expecting you to, the system didn't give you the result you wanted so obviously there's a knee jerk reaction to want to change the system to one where you'd get the result you want....unfortunately that's short sighted. You know, just like it was short sighted for Democrats to change Senate rules to make it more difficult for the minority party to slow things down.....you can bet they'll be kicking themselves for that now that they are the minority party.

When you say that the votes of Democrats in Wyoming have 0 value, you miss the point. The people of Wyoming, or any state, got their say. Their collective voice gets heard. Any other system and the voices of those in small states would be drowned out by those in more densely populated states.

 

You are so obtuse. "Poor liberals in red states. Their voices are suppressed". Nevermind the same applies for conservatives in California, NY and Washington. You realize the voice of a couple counties in the state of Washing speaks for everyone else? Where is your rage now? Urban liberals overwhelmingly speak for rural America.

And your vote does matter. This is why people should take the time to vote in the off years for the House and Senate. You do realize there is more to vote for than president?

Quit being a sour puss. Blame the corrupt DNC for putting Clinton on the ticket.

 

I want each vote to have equal value in the presidential election. You keep defending the "rural" people and worrying about "densely populated regions." I don't care about population density. I want each American's vote to have equal value.

As far as the system not giving the result I wanted: I went along the first time, when Gore won the popular vote, and we got:

Bush 2-->Iraq 2-->ISIS.

Now Democrats are going along again, very nicely. Sure, Republicans think this is p***y behavior (not the kind of p***y you'd grab), but Democrats think it is patriotic.

This time, the minority vote wins despite a deficit of about 1.5 million votes. It's too much.

WOW: Trump voters can officially be considered a "minority"! America's changing faster than we know.

 

The Founding Father chose a Constitutional Republic over a Democracy. They feared the tyranny of the majority. You know, pretty much what we could easily have in the here and now if those protesters (the ones who are eagerly descending into lawlessness and rioting) were to have their way.

There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives, the 100 Senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in theTwenty-third Amendment.

Each state's number of representatives is determined every 10 years by the United States Census. Each representative represents approximately 711,000 persons. In the case of senators, each state is entitled to two. It's REALLY simple math.

What's sad is how many libs on this board can't seem to grasp this. Like the paragon of the left (Obama) once smugly stated: "The election's over". In other words, to the victor go the spoils.

We are not a Democracy. Stop whining about each vote having equal value. That's not how it works in our system. Finally, as it has been pointed out time and time again, due to differences in population density it could never truly function in such a manner.

 

[Pompously] The Founding Fathers didn't allow slaves or women to vote. Can't the libs get their act together and add up 435+100+3? Duh! It all makes perfect sense!

 

What you want is for a system that would have given you the outcome you wanted. You want mob rule when it benefits you at the time even though it's an incredibly foolish idea long term.....it's kind of why I'm glad you aren't getting your way.

 

We're not a Democracy. We're a Republic. Please stop going and on about each vote - we elect REPRESENTATIVES in order to minimize the tyranny of the majority. It's really that simply.

 

Dude you are hitting wikipedia hard today!

OK, you're the minority: we'll protect you.

 

I get your gist and for the most part, you are correct. Two arguments are being mixed.

We are governed as a Republic, meaning a specific set of laws (the Constitution) dictates the rule, not the rule of the mob (democracy). However yes, liberals are certainly trying to circumvent the Republic. They do this by going straight to the Supreme Court because they feel 'democracy' overrides the rules of our Republic. They want to take away states rights because they feel their mob rule is more superior. They use arguments like same sex people not getting the same tax breaks as hetro married couples and comparing them to blacks being forced to sit at the back of the bus, not being allowed to vote or other true day to day struggles for people who are truly disenfranchised. The problem with going to the Supreme Court for sweeping legislation is now a precedent is being formed. The mob can now find some very subjective Constitutional reason and have 9 guys completely circumvent our legal system and get whatever they want passed in a single judgement. At this point, we are no longer a Republic.

 

Where I disagree with you is going after SCOTUS, it's part of the Republic. Discriminating against homosexuals by deeming that they can't marry runs counter to the constitution. It's a good thing that when laws are passed that are contrary to the values of the nation there is a body that can overrule them.

Having the government interfere in the personal relationships of it's citizens runs counter to a conservative position by the way.

 

This thread is awesome.

The Supreme Court with eight justices? Republicans have not even allowed the Supreme Court to function normally for almost a year.

The Supreme Court where Trump wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

IT IS SO DAMN HILARIOUS WATCHING CONSERVATIVES SUDDENLY SELF-IDENTIFY AS MINORITIES AND BECOME ARDENT DEFENDERS OF MINORITY RIGHTS.

That's right: welcome to the minority. Forever. . . .

 

Incorrect and this is exactly what im stating. Hetrosexual marriage is an inclusive institution. It was not designed to exclude or discriminate against homosexuals. Jim Crow laws were specific to exclude/discriminate against group of people so therefore rights were infringed.

Here is the litmus test; As a single guy who does not want to get married, I do not get the rights as those who are married (This is the exact argument homosexuals used). By your logic, I am being discriminated against. However I do not think my rights are being discriminated against nor do I think homosexual rights were discriminated against. I do agree the issue should be addressed.

This is what happens when mob mentality rules. The liberals ran to the Supreme Court, go their protected class favoritism for political purposes, all while stiffing everyone else.

And yes, the class of single people (for life) is growing and they deserve the same rights the homosexuals crowed on about. Many of us do not want to get into the broken legal system of marriage, which could have been fixed if homosexuals really gave a **** about their rights instead of focusing on forcing their beliefs on others.

 

What is 'function normally'? You mean having a 9th? You do realize Congress dictates this number? Congress could pass legislation and deem only 8 justices are needed. (This has happened. Go take a history class) Fortunately while Republicans might be obstructionist, they do not do shady business like 'deem and pass' major healthcare reform or lobby electoral college members to vote hillary instead of Trump.

If Republicans do end up appointing 3 Justices over the next four years, I expect a democratic congress in the future to change this from 9 to 11 and appoint liberal Justices. This is what liberals do.

 

Well....according to the law, there's no such thing as "heterosexual marriage", there's just marriage. Saying that the only unions that can be recognized are between a man and a woman is discriminatory. Other combinations are every bit as valid in the eyes of the law.

Homosexuals who do not wish to marry have the same rights as anyone else who does not wish to marry. Homosexuals who choose to marry have the same rights as anyone else who chooses to marry.

How is that controversial in any way? It REALLY shouldn't be.

 

You want to rethink that at all? If I pass a law that all white people get a million-dollar tax break, you think that is inclusive or exclusive?

I do think single people deserve the same rights and privileges as everyone else.

Are you referring to the Florida recount and the Supreme Court ruling in Bush-Gore 2000?

I take it you don't "give a ****" about "the class of single people" who "deserve the same rights the homosexuals crowed on about," because you've been about as successful as homosexuals in fixing "the broken legal system of marriage."

What do you think about Republicans altering the function of the Supreme Court (8 justices)? This is literally flouting the Constitution, which gives the president the right to appoint justices.

 

The rights in question have nothing to do with who you're f---ing. These rights should be extended to everyone, including gays and singles.
-Tax Benefits
-Estate Planning
-Government Benefits
-Employment Benefits
-Medical Benefits
-Death Benefits
-Family Benefits
-Housing Benefits
-Consumer Benefits

Are you really telling me that couples who do not wish to enter into a broken marriage system do not deserve these rights? I believe you are.

Trump has turned our little Bobby into a liberal. If you are not part of a protected class, you do not deserve said rights.

 

I don't think you understand how and why these things happen. Giving benefits for marriage is no different than giving benefits for incorporation. Those benefits aren't "rights", but if you are going to allow heterosexual couples to marry, you have to allow homosexual couples to marry and you can't deny benefits to one married group or the other.

Now if you want to make a case that singles should have the government give them some benefits based on that status, fine, but it's in no way related to gay marriage.

 

Dumb analogy.
Its inclusive. There is no wording that suggests its discriminating against a certain class.

I honestly have no idea what youre babbling about. Are you referring to the legal steps taken that favored Bush then entire way, even up to the supreme court?

Again, I dont know what you're trying to say, but I've always been pro-civil union. I have also stated the marriage system is broken and needs to be reworked. It overwhelmingly favors debtees. Many miserable people stayed married because there is no easy way out. Many people stay away from marriage because of the liability it brings. But hey gays, welcome to the party! So sad you could have made it so much better.

Dude, focus. It doesn't give the president the right to appoint and approve justices. Congress does. The president gets the right to select the Judge for congress to approve. There is no time table for congress to approve. Its not a good practice, but its not flouting the Constitution.

 

You are exactly right. And this is why the .gov should get out of the marriage business altogether.

And then with all of these 'rights', as you put it, should be printed out with a basic form, signed, notarized and filed. A la carte style.

 

"I don't know what you're trying to say" and "I honestly have no idea what youre babbling about" are not effective responses.

Well I'll agree with you then. Republicans obstructing the appointment of a Supreme Court justice for eight months is "not a good practice." Republicans also want the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I find it ironic that you write about liberals doing an end run by resorting to the Supreme Court.