Search results

That's correct. Nor does saying there was evidence for massive fraud mean that there was. We have courts, and so far the courts haven't seen any solid content in those fraud claims. So what's left? To decide the issue in social media or on the streets? Or to accept what the courts say?

That executive order can impose sanctions. It won't change the election results.

Netanyahu should get the prize. Maybe with Trump. I still won't vote for Netanyahu- but I do recognize his diplomatic achievements.

Exactly. So if the State Legislature says "governor flips a coin"- that's how it works in that State. Or, more to the point- if the State Legislature decides to accept mail-in ballots- - that's how it works in that State. The Supreme Court isn't going to intervene.

It is often difficult to tell the difference between tongue in cheek and real opinions. especially on a site like this

Again, you are taking caution as a sign of total failure. But hey- all this fits into your superior "knowledge" of what is Really Going ON (TM). Please, come back here in a few months, and report to me how many people were killed by the vaccine. Time will tell.

No, but you just admitted to being paranoid and ridiculous.

What actually happens is that each State gets to decide how to choose the electors. They can set up elections any way they want, or the State legislature can choose them. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the governor of a state can flip a coin to decide. This is a States Rights issue...

The health organizations are being extremely careful, and you read this caution as "see! the vaccine is deadly."

Unless you have some evidence of what :the founders thought", this is simply speculation on your part. Since the "winner takes all" method is not dictated in the Constitution, it seems unlikely that this was their intention.

50 million people aren't going to go into shock. It's a rare reaction. This is Science and Statistics- not ideology. Except in your head.

When I first moved to a country with a parliamentary system and coalition governments- I thought is was horrible. Over time, I've learned that it has a big advantage: more groups, including minority groups, get a say in the decision making.

There are so many assumptions in this post. "good states" vs. "bad states"? People easily moved from state to state based on "good" vs. "bad"? Is this some kind of evolutionary scheme to 'improve' states, or a way of making binary decisions?

No, though I've visited there. Why do you ask? Maybe you should ask the Supreme Court justices that question. But I suggest you word it differently: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?"

It's pretty clear by now that the claims of election rigging had no solid basis. The courts have thrown all these lawsuits out- including courts with many Trump appointees. I noticed "radio silence" on this topic here recently. Anybody willing to admit that it's over?

This doesn't explain winner takes all. Not in the least. This has nothing to do with sharing power- you end up with one president even without the winner takes all approach- which, by the way, erases the minority view in the state.

But why "winner takes all"?! nobody has answered that.

None of this is a surprise. A small percentage of people will have a bad reaction to the vaccine. Emphasis on "small". It happens with every vaccine. This will protect millions from a life-threatening disease Go get vaccinated!

um

One could argue either way- which is why you have a house of representatives and a senate. But the electoral college is something else altogether, and is unrelated. Small states get less electors, just like the house of representatives. What I don't see is why "winner takes all" make sense.