T1B

mvscal wrote:The goal is, was and shall remain equitable apportionment of representation.

One man, one vote is direct democracy and is mob rule. Stop lying.

Merriam Fucking Webster wrote:equitable

Main Entry:
eq·ui·ta·ble Listen to the pronunciation of equitable
Pronunciation:
\ˈe-kwə-tə-bəl\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1598

1 : having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned <an equitable settlement of the dispute>

2 : existing or valid in equity as distinguished from law <an equitable defense>

Equitable means everybody is accorded an EQUAL proportion of representation. The method employed by the US Constitution is, by definition, NOT equitable.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Equitable means everybody is accorded an EQUAL proportion of representation.

No, it means a fair proportion of representation.

Leave it to msvtard to fly in the face of facts.

Come up with another word if you must. Because equitable does not even remotely apply.

Back on topic--sort of. I guess Bri that if you sent this message to senator Evita's organization that
you will not be getting a "holiday card" from the Clinton family at the end of the year ?
I might be able to arrange one from President -elect McCain if it would fill the void !

Wolfman wrote:Back on topic--sort of. I guess Bri that if you sent this message to senator Evita's organization that
you will not be getting a "holiday card" from the Clinton family at the end of the year ?
I might be able to arrange one from President -elect McCain if it would fill the void !

Sorry, I don't think mail from Fantasyland reaches Rochester.

Wolfman wrote: if it would fill the void !

Sounds like the set-up to a "Dear Mrs. Skilla" reset

BSmack wrote: I never said it would happen, just it was the ideal solution for a modern 21st century democracy to undertake.

Of course as we become more oligarchic, the chances for true democratic reform become nil and zero.

You do realize the country you shit in is a Constitutional Republic with Democratic institutions?

Or do you like to sound like a liberal college sophmore douchebag for effect?

Charles De Mar wrote:
Or do you like to sound like a liberal college sophmore douchebag for effect?

Those were the best years of B-Monica's life.

Charles De Mar wrote:

BSmack wrote:I never said it would happen, just it was the ideal solution for a modern 21st century democracy to undertake.

Of course as we become more oligarchic, the chances for true democratic reform become nil and zero.

You do realize the country you shit in is a Constitutional Republic with Democratic institutions?

Just came off a 3 day History Channel jag eh?

Or do you like to sound like a liberal college sophmore douchebag for effect?

You should aspire to be as smart as the average college sophomore. Hell, you should aspire to be able to SPELL sophomore correctly.

Looks like Monica is honing his smack skills for the smackov.

Pretty near top form too, btw

Cuda wrote:...smackov.

Brushing up on your Russian? Good for you, comrade.

Truman wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Wrong on this point. 2000 Election out front told you so.

Ah. Another Graduate from the 1+1=Whateveryoufeelitshouldequal School of Higher Progressive Thought..

Riddle me this Ter: What part of 271-266 continues to defeat you…?

Ahhh, I see that my point, like those airplanes you ridicule, flew completely over your head.

Point was this: on Election Night 2000, Florida was too close to call. But Florida wasn't alone in that regard. New Mexico and Oregon also were too close to call.

But everyone seems to forget that latter point. Why do you think that is? I'll dumb it down for you: because Florida had significantly more electoral votes than New Mexico or Oregon (or combined for that matter). And Florida's winner-take-all system of apportioning its electoral vote meant, at that point, that Florida alone would decide the outcome. New Mexico and Oregon essentially were relegated to beauty contests.

Think about that one for a minute, then get back to me about how the votes of people in New Mexico and Oregon actually counted for anything in that last Presidential election.

Btw, it was 271-267, and I'm not upset that Gore lost. I am, however, upset that Bush won.

Has anybody bothered to figure out the delegate count for that election if apportioning delegates was used? How in the fukk can naybody continue to justify the winner take all bullshit that we use currently?

smackaholic wrote:Has anybody bothered to figure out the delegate count for that election if apportioning delegates was used?

Which election?

How in the fukk can naybody continue to justify the winner take all bullshit that we use currently?

Winner take all primaries on the GOP side are designed so that the candidate is selected fairly quickly and they don't have some long, drawn out, and costly campaign just to secure the nomination...

...and can then save more resources for the general election, the one that really counts.