Poll: Majority of Republicans Want Kavanaugh Confirmed Even if Guilty

If we're simply going to counts of 'states', then that means Obama wasn't picked twice by the majority of 'Americans'. It's a stupid argument made by stupid people because they're too insecure to admit they're wrong.

Your quote, 'No, i mean a skewed result in a state that is liberal is not an indication of a majority of Americans'.

You said Americans, not states. Now answer my question. Which number is larger, 65,845,063 or 62,980,160?

@Jacanuk: Dude your argument is so very sad. Popular vote is not the same as EC votes. It's not. And you're making an ass of yourself arguing thus.

Yes Americans as in America the United States. So are you having a problem understanding that Trump won a majority of states?

Which number is larger, 65,845,063 or 62,980,160? I don't understand why this is so hard for you to answer.

Which number is larger 30 or 20....

Not going to try to have a debate about this with you again, IT´s not the first time and it´s getting tiresome looking at your trolling.

Ah yes the old jac doesn't have a response so he resorts to ad hominems.

Which number is larger, 65,845,063 or 62,980,160? You can keep dodging it all day.

Not really but how many times do you want to have the same debate that ends the same way? you keep arguing that an EC system where states' population picks who they want to represent them, is not working and should be changed. When at the same time advocating for a popular vote where a single state can skew the result disregarding all the other states result.

So either you are trolling or you are just a hypocrite.

Which number is larger 30 or 20...

How long do you want to keep this up?

Ah, the adult equivalent of 'I know what you are but what am I.' Backed into a corner by your own terrible logic and you can't even admit you don't understand what 'majority' means.

The popular vote has always and does mean individuals. Not states. Are you really this uneducated?

What on earth are you talking about? but thanks for confirming that you are just trolling.

Not really, what you do not seem to get here is that America is a union of states, So it´s absurd to talk about a single states population as to America as a whole. America is the states and the states meaning 30 voted for Trump.

'No, i mean a skewed result in a state that is liberal is not an indication of a majority of Americans'.

'majority of Americans'

'Americans'

Apparently you're having a hard time defending your own words. Americans are citizens, they are individuals. A majority means over 50%. Hence, majority of Americans means more than half of American individuals.

Apparently, you are having a hard time understanding pretty basic things here.

United "beep" of America, means ..... come on you know this.

So any president is voted into office by a majority of "beep" meaning a majority of Americans.

This should be easy for someone like you to understand.

no its painful clear you do not understand

you are clearly unaware of the fact that its possible for the majority of people to vote for a candiate and yet that candiate actually lose the election. because of the way our system works its NOT a pure majority

its happened more than once, you are extreemly out of touch with basic facts

You know why we have the electoral college? ...

yes but do you also know how winning the electorial college does NOT mean you have the majority of voters.

I am surprised you know the electorial college there for a second based on what you said it appeared you really did think it was a pure vote system. its not

I never said the majority of votes. So stop trying to make up things.

I said a majority of America.

ah..! so why were you not just more clear from the start in saying you do not consider people to be america but rather you consider the electorial college to be america.

Anyone with legal citizenship in America is an American.

So not sure what you mean here? What I have been saying from the start with Matt, is that claiming that the population in California is somehow worth more than a population in South Dakota or Texas is wrong. America is a union of states.

You know why we have the electoral college? (And LJS you do not need to respond to troll in this)

Also how many times did it happen? Just to check if you actually are aware because considering how many elections there has been, it´s actually rare that the popular vote does not follow the majority of states.

Anyone with legal citizenship in America is an American.

So not sure what you mean here? What I have been saying from the start with Matt, is that claiming that the population in California is somehow worth more than a population in South Dakota or Texas is wrong. America is a union of states.

Anyone with legal citizenship in America is an American.

So not sure what you mean here? What I have been saying from the start with Matt, is that claiming that the population in California is somehow worth more than a population in South Dakota or Texas is wrong. America is a union of states.

Telling you facts is not trolling. I get that as a trumpist you want to think that since that's how he holds his base.......but it's patently false. Just because you cannot cope with reality does not mean it's trolling.

later he basically says he means 'majority of america' not majority of americans' and he is defining 'america' as 'the electoral college'

Telling you facts is not trolling. I get that as a trumpist you want to think that since that's how he holds his base.......but it's patently false. Just because you cannot cope with reality does not mean it's trolling.

You are not telling any facts, you are doing one thing and that is trolling.

What we are saying is that saying that a person in South Dakota counts significantly more than a person in California is a dumb system. Especially as the only difference is geography. Why do some people's voice matter more just because they happen to be located where fewer people live?

States aren't people.

How does an election in a state work? do people walk up and vote.

And no a vote in South Dakota does not mean more than a vote in California, that is why South Dakota does not get as many EC votes as California, also I bet you didn´t know that the EC is based on the census. California gets a representative number of EC votes as to its population size.

The problem with your idea of a popular vote being the decider is that no candidate would even care about South Dakota when a State like California can skew a result as much as they can be based on its population.

How does an election in a state work? do people walk up and vote.

And no a vote in South Dakota does not mean more than a vote in California, that is why South Dakota does not get as many EC votes as California, also I bet you didn´t know that the EC is based on the census. California gets a representative number of EC votes as to its population size.

The problem with your idea of a popular vote being the decider is that no candidate would even care about South Dakota when a State like California can skew a result as much as they can be based on its population.

Yes votes in less populated states mean more than in more populated states. That's the entire reason for the EC. So states that suck and no one wants to live in have a disproportionate say in the elections.

California does have more votes, but it is massively disproportionate. And the census has a lot of problems.

Educate yourself,

That is your opinion

And so far you have not in one single debate ever come up with a solution where everyone is "equal"

That is your opinion

And so far you have not in one single debate ever come up with a solution where everyone is "equal"

That is your opinion

And so far you have not in one single debate ever come up with a solution where everyone is "equal"

THAT IS NOT OPINION. And use of the popular vote is in fact equal.

No, the use of a popular vote is as skewed and unfair as you claim the EC is, It would divide America into two areas, NY and California and then the rest of America would have zero to say.

How many times do you think a Republican would ever win if there was a popular vote system in place? considering the demographics of those two areas. (at least if we do not move Republicans over to become California moderate "republicans")

Do you even know the last time a Republican presidential candidate has won California? I can give a hint and considering your age, say that you were most likely just out of high school,

That is your opinion that it´s massively disproportionate.

Also what problems does the census have?

And I am educated about the EC, but you have not said anything about what your solution would be?

Pretty sure the Popular Vote system works pretty well for the rest of the world, especially since it is usually coupled with other systems like ranked choice voting and other forms that allow for more than a duopoly of political parties.

The argument was that polls show people in favour of liberal ideas, while their actions tell a different story. So which one do you think is most accurate?

Ok, so let me ask you another question. Do you agree that America is a union of states? And a state law in California does not equal a law in Texas, and that skewing the federal system in any political way, would be bad?

So no the popular vote system you consider would not work in a union of states and especially not considering that would skew the result towards the liberals since they have the two biggest populated area.

Look at the answer to LJS and maybe you can answer without trolling, When did a Republican last win in California?

Do you not understand that Trump won 30 states, meaning a majority of America wanted Trump as their president.

No, the use of a popular vote is as skewed and unfair as you claim the EC is, It would divide America into two areas, NY and California and then the rest of America would have zero to say.

How many times do you think a Republican would ever win if there was a popular vote system in place? considering the demographics of those two areas. (at least if we do not move Republicans over to become California moderate "republicans")

Do you even know the last time a Republican presidential candidate has won California? I can give a hint and considering your age, say that you were most likely just out of high school,

Ok, so let me ask you another question. Do you agree that America is a union of states? And a state law in California does not equal a law in Texas, and that skewing the federal system in any political way, would be bad?

So no the popular vote system you consider would not work in a union of states and especially not considering that would skew the result towards the liberals since they have the two biggest populated area.

Look at the answer to LJS and maybe you can answer without trolling, When did a Republican last win in California?

You dont need to win a majority of votes in California to win the general election. George W. Bush didnt need it to win his second general election.

And most other republicans didnt need California to win.

Hmm, did Bush jr, really win the election? (hate to say I gotcha but I Gotcha)

That was probably the worst example you could have brought up.