Summations Only

Hi Dr Adequate, And go from one extreme to the other disregarding how their state votes?To me the EC is a great opportunity to delay announcing results in each state -- in case there needs to be a revote, to count all the absentee votes, and to allow western states to feel they have something to vote for -- by having the state results report state by state at the EC, with big media circus etc etcEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...

Well, if you'd like the winner of the popular vote to win, that's how to do it.

I meant to get your name crossed off of the list of people who voted so that you are not counted as an apathetic non-voter. Destroy your ballot I guess.

There is another possible meaning of fy's statement. The Republican ad is a distortion of what Obama actually said, but that distortion would not be a lie if Obama actually believes something similar to that distortion. It also would not be a lie, strictly speaking, if the person behind the ad believed the distortion.In other words, it isn't a lie if you actually believe it.For good or ill, some people believe all kinds of things about Obama regardless of what he actually says and does and despite all evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt that Buzsaw believes everything he says about Obama, no matter how ridiculous.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What would be the enforcement mechanism for such an agreement? I am trying to imagine all of the red states following the agreement when a cross-dressing, liberal, socialist, candidate wins the popular vote.I find it difficult to imagine a court enforcing the agreement. Presently, there is no clear constitutional mandate for the electors to even follow their states orders on how to vote.

It's possible for states to sign legally binding treaties with one another. What exactly would happen if one of them reneged on such a treaty I don't know, but I do know that they can do it.

What amazes me is how a board of such intelligent sheeple can remain in such utter ignorance of the despot that they are supporting.It's like if they were Jews in Germany and could easily know that they were supporting the own demise and all of the blessings whcih they have in the most blessed nation in history. No wonder they can besieve in such wild magic as the BB an evolution.

Hi Dr Adequate, no it's A way to do it, which is rather extreme imho. It could end up with a red state voting blue or vice versa.I would prefer representational division of the EC votes.Enjoy.

Hi NoNukes Correct and that is the way it was envisaged by the founding fathers, before the development of parties.Remember that originally the person with the most EC votes became president and the person with the next most votes became vice president. There were no primaries, so there could be several candidates on the ballots, not all of them listed in every state. The founding fathers envisaged an EC that made a decision in more of a parliamentarian fashion.Enjoy

Evidence, please, you silly old geezer! Like, say, examples of despotism that distinguish Obama from Bush. (Melanin content of epidermis is not a valid example.)When did jackbooted thugs come confiscate your guns, Buz? When did your Federal taxes go up? When did the New Mooslim Atheist Gubmint force one of your granddaughters to start taking birth control pills?In short, what the hell are you talking about???

Buz, your examples of "despotism" never seem to hold up to inspection, so what are we supposed to be "ignorant" about? Obama had Seal Team Six killed? That never happened. Czars? "Czar" is just a media term for a kind of executive branch advisor, usually one subject to Senate approval, and at any rate Obama has less of them than the last guy - as though the number of advisors a President had was a measure of "despotism."The truth is, you call Obama a Kenyan Muslim usurper with a fake birth certificate for no reason besides the fact that you're a Republican and he's a Democrat, and those are the worst things you can think of to say about him. It's like the way you think the Clintons had Vince Foster killed. But the fact that you'll wholeheartedly endorse the most outlandish, fairy-story conspiracy theories provided the subject is a prominent Democrat and you're hearing the theory from a Republican is just another example of your intellectual inability to assess an argument independently of your opinion of who is making it.

Buz, please have a visit to the Amnesty International website here: Home | Amnesty International UKIt's a charity which, amongst other things, stands up for the rights of people who are the victims of genuinely despotic regimes around the world. The details are harrowing. (Type in "broken bottle" in the search engine on the library page, for a starter).Please bear in mind that characterising the duly elected leader of a democracy as a despot not only gives your views the appearance of being ridiculous - it is insulting to the thousands of victims of actual despotism around the world.

If that is true then I imagine that you can provide the evidence that supports your assertion.

You find it amazing that intelligent people disagree with you? I'd have thought you'd be used to it by now.

In an earlier post, I wrote: I think we are now seeing the beginnings of this implosion.With Romney's selection of Ryan, we now see a stark contrast between two very different visions for America.One vision is that of an America that is for an elite super-rich tiny minority.The other vision of an America of the 99%, an America where all men were created equal.I know which of those visions that I support.Edited by nwr, : provide a subtitle