On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 14:08:10 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 2:59:50 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:52:30 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 2:47:10 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:36:24 -0000, Sterling Archer wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword explained :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for the national government.

This guy Sword is dumber than a sack of hammers or he is a troll, or
both.

Why can't you yank ****wits understand simple concepts?

It's not that we don't understand what you're saying. It's that we
don't think it's a good idea for this country.

Bear in mind that I voted for the loser in this race, and I still
think the Electoral College is important and desirable.

Anything other than 1 vote per person means you think some people are more important than others.

Here's another way of looking at it. Our people don't elect
the president. Our states do.

Who elects your Prime Minister? Not the people.

Our system is ****ed too, which is why we keep telling the government we want proportional representation.

--
Lymph (v.), to walk with a lisp.