Judged:
1
1
1
Does DC also get one?<quoted text>How about each state gets one vote regardless of size or population?
Comments (Page 5,521)
|
Judged: 1 1 1 Does DC also get one? |
|
|
“Facts trump speculation” Since: Dec 08
Location hidden |
Judged: 1 1 1 Each state decides for itself how electors are chosen. Ever hear of states' rights? |
|
Judged: 1 1 1 And Romney never lies because you can find a clip of him saying anything you want him to say. ROFLMAO! Too bad for you, Romney and all of his supporters there aren't enough idiots in this country to believe Republican lies. The smart people know who created the problems in the economy and they know who will fix it. A Democrat, just like the last time! The only thing Republicans are good for is creating large debt and destroying the economy, and then whining that the Democrats aren't fixing it fast enough. |
|
|
“ad maiora nati sumus ” Since: Sep 09
Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron |
Judged: 1 1 1 It has been tried before but the United States Supreme Court has held it be unconstitutional in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) in which Chief Justice Warren wrote: Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Id. at 562 |
|
“ad maiora nati sumus ” Since: Sep 09
Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron |
Judged: 1 1 1 It has been tried before but the United States Supreme Court has held it be unconstitutional in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) in which Chief Justice Warren wrote: "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Id. at 562 |
|
Judged: 1 1 1 You are high or stupid. President Barack Hussein Obama won the popular vote by a huge margin. Democrats were voted in at all levels. Go play in the sandbox with the other children, Tacky. |
|
|
“ad maiora nati sumus ” Since: Sep 09
Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron |
Judged: 1 1 1 It has been tried before but the United States Supreme Court has held it be unconstitutional in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) in which Chief Justice Warren wrote: Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Id. at 562 |
|
Judged: 1 1 1 Rogue the Barely Literate misunderstands what he reads. Sad. |
|
|
Judged: 1 1 1 Well, Tootsie, that wouldn't be representative democracy. Why do you hate the republican for of government now that birfoons and cons have been soundly rebuked? You're not learning a lesson from Tuesdays lost, and the GOP will be doomed to fail miserably -- again -- if you don't catch on fast. Time to leave politics to the people who understand it, Tootsie. |
|
|
Judged: 1 1 1 If you are trying to claim no Republican has done anything illegal, you are proving that YOU are stupid. Fortunately, America is not as stupid as you. |
|
|
Judged: 2 2 2 What??? No response to my comments??? You just want to copy-n-past your cry baby crap. Waaaaa...'my rich white man didn't win because there are more blacks and hispanics in the city'. |
|
|
Judged: 1 1 1 How about each person gets one vote regardless of race, ethnic background, religion,.....etc? We should change to a system based on only the popular vote. |
|
|
Since: May 10
Location hidden |
Judged: 1 1 1 I have an even better idea. Each county should get one vote!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Genera... |
|
Judged: 1 1 1 There you go again with that pesky Constitution and that gang of henchmen you call the Supreme Court. You and your book learnin aren't giving us the answer that we want, that's how we know you are either wrong or lying |
|
|
“Facts trump speculation” Since: Dec 08
Location hidden |
Judged: 1 1 1 Now who said that?
|
|
Judged: 1 1 1 That would be great. Al Gore AND Barack Obama would have been elected under that system! If Bush hadn't been elected the country would not be recovering from a near depression. |
|
|
Toronto, Canada |
Judged: 1 1 1 Herewith Guru prediction Nov 4. LoL. Guru, eh? Some guru. And, the "unguruiest" prediction of all as it's Romny who took the early lead, 33 electoral vote to 3. Thereafter, poor man never knew what hit him. Lost his own state in a Dem lanslide. Explanation for that : My wife had it. She said that the Mass population knew him best of all, is why. Ha ha. Then "Moe" Ryan also lost his own state. What a cheeze head. |
|
Judged: 1 1 1 So Alaska and Louisiana don't get to vote? |
|
|
Toronto, Canada |
Judged: 1 1 1 Yes, a Romney-Moe Ryan lanslide in the offing. You are such a dolt. And what a sore loser. So ignorant. So birther. |
|
Toronto, Canada |
Judged: 1 1 1 Rogue, did you ever get one prediction right? Just one? This is the biggest "wrongest" one of all. |
|
Tell me when this thread is updated: |
|
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
2 min | Buroc Millhouse Obama | 838,303 |
|
|
6 min | Nell | 5,223 |
|
|
9 min | Hill | 33,483 |
| {keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) | 18 min | PEllen | 2,069 |
|
|
19 min | PEllen | 84,743 |
|
|
27 min | Frijoles | 47,479 |
|
|
31 min | Fair Game | 34,003 |