Sorry if I'm not as good at shallow, bumber-sticker sloganeering as you are.

They have their voices heard just like anyone else who votes. Why should a hillbilly's vote count more than a city-slicker's? Is their geographical location, culture, and ideology somehow more superior, more godly? You may not agree with actual representative democracy, but that IS the system. And we are trying to change it to become a more perfect Union, as our Founders intended.

But I already asked that basic question and tried to flesh it out. Whether it's explained in one paragraph or eight makes no difference, because you obviously are not interested in factual reality, which you only deride with lies and insults, and then whine when somebody insults your own so-called "truth." That is classical projection.

Please do your homework and actually study what you apparently just skim over and then attempt to re-interpret.

@#18: That's the lame, go-to argument, to which robotic Republicans always revert. Upon further examination, however, it completely falls apart. To find out how and why (If you can somehow stomach it), please peruse these ("evil liberal") links, also posted in the above threads:

https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/posts/1380664685307051

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Briefly, the Republican's disingenuous argument is an illogical, pretzel-twisted interpretation of what a democracy should mean at the most fundamental level, which is our individual vote -- basically a severely limited, geographical-based election process that awards more voting power to a minority of mostly white, rural, radical christianists who seek to impose their fringe ideology on the vast majority of more pragmatic, realistic voters, who are just as religious in their own way. Our Founders clearly intended that no religion or ideology should have preference over any other.

Think about it; in a true democracy, why the hell should it matter if a person happens to live in a city, a coastal area, or Mudville Jesusland? This country belongs to everyone, not just the few. One-person/one-vote, period, and let the majority will of the people speak. If you don't like it, go start a revolution and fight your religious wars in La La Land somewhere else. I would suggest the Middle East, where the concept of democracy is equally strange.

The above links will explain the history quite accurately and plainly why the Founders felt they had to seek a compromise with Southern states to back the new Federal Constitution of 1789, as opposed to the original Articles of Confederation -- a state-based system thoroughly corrupted by contemporaneous big-money interests that played the fractured states off one another to such a degree that it threatened the very survival of our brand new, experimental democracy.

Furthermore, a large factor of racism was involved in this grossly imperfect arrangement, in that the South was awarded more heft in the Electoral College by counting the large population of slaves as "three-fifths of a person," even though they couldn't vote. Read the actual history of the Electoral College, not the bastardized Republican construction. It's complicated with other, perhaps more noble reasons; nonetheless, the Founders never meant the Constitution to be a static, sacrosanct document like the Bible, where it couldn't be adjusted to match modernity -- as long as it did not fundamentally alter the key founding principles, encapsulated and enshrined with the concept that all power is derived from the People first and foremost -- all people! Of course it's not yet a perfect Union; it's still an ongoing experiment.

As an aside, the inner, egocentric Republican reasoning behind the Electoral College, which historically favors their side, is very similar to why they always refer to our system of government as a republic rather than a democracy. See, the former sounds like "Republican," and the latter sounds too much like "DemocRAT" (emphasis on "rat"). In truth, our system is codified as a constitutionally-limited, two-party, representative, democratic republic.

Of course that still does include, unfortunately, the Electoral College. We definitely need to change this horse-and-buggy anachronism to match our modern world of mass transportation and mass communication, where geographical and ideological (think net neutrality) boundaries are largely inconsequential. Virtually all other elections (and all other democracies) are one-person, one-vote, fifty-one percent majority. Why should the Presidential election be any different? (The Senate filibuster is also an undemocratic anachronism that should be done away with, even though it's the last, sad vestige of power the Democrats can cling to.)

I wonder if Republicans would feel differently if 30-some College Electors changed their votes because they were so disgusted by such an obviously unqualified candidate? Of course this won't happen, since they are as polarized as everyone else, but it is very much a big part of their constitutional, and morally conscience, right to do so -- in spite of any restrictions the individual states impose upon them not to do so.

This is a 3rd world country.

ErinRose: Very well put. All excellent points!

I'm very discouraged by the whole stinking mess also. I've spent years hanging around way too many right-wing blog sites trying to understand the mentality and have posted on numerous corporate media sites, as well, many with similar results as you have expressed. Hate to say it, but I finally gave it all up as a pointless exercise in futility; most of these people simply do not listen to or care about anything they perceive as having even the slightest scent of that evil "liberalism," like it's some kind of contagion.

I eschew labels -- even though they are an unavoidable part of political discourse -- but can't help it that the simple truth of something sounds liberal to some people, while the outright lie sounds conservative. I'm sure there are many paid trolls lurking out there but suspect most are just true-blue zealots, so convinced of their own righteousness that they cannot entertain, intellectually or emotionally, anything that doesn't fit into their well-worn, comfortable pattern of thought.

It really is evil ... and frightening, especially in the most powerful country on the planet, with so much destructive technology at the fingertips of the worst scary clown of them all.

There is an excellent article on Jill Stein's official campaign FB page co-authored by Bob Fitrakis - one of her election integrity advisors. It was written November 28th and should be on her FB timeline.

https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/posts/1380664685307051

​In the article - 7 senate races went to the GOP that should have gone to democrats in 2014 (3) and 2016 (4).

Across the nation, millions of potential Democratic voters evidently were purged unknowingly and unjustifiably from the registration rolls by craven Republican Secretaries of State and their operatives, and, no doubt, many of those affected were in these three key states. The hapless voters should have been handed provisional ballots. So I wonder if their placebo votes will be included in the recount effort, since they would seem to have a much bigger impact than whatever increased margins can be teased out of the faulty machines.

Perhaps the "Interstate Crosscheck" fraud, along with other types of fraud, will be exposed in due course while conducting the recount; however, except for progressive alternative media, which can't seem to break the sound barrier, no one is talking about it. Again, reality and truth are flying under the radar...

We are seeing the first indications of a totalitarian mentality. Control and use the law to subvert democratic process, news blackout and loyal henchment, and above all, there are only fearful opposition and/or brainwashed apathy

In a real democracy all leaders should want to demonstrate that our voting system is reliable. One side claims voter fraud, the other side claims election fraud. In this day and age of propaganda and public manipulation, let's take the steps to demonstrate that our system works or it doesn't.

Hi Thom,

Between the two options that you presented, I'd choose the second, that there MAY BE something there. However, personally, I believe that there is a 3rd option: Jill Stein is exercising her right to a recount. Regardless if she wants to promote herself or if she uncovers something, I believe she is exercising her right to a recount. As such, I don't see why people are speculating on her intentions for pursuing the recounts. If recounts became a standard part of our electoral process, I'd be happy with that. Any measure used to fortify the legitemacy of our electoral process is good so long as it's not oppressive, and there's nothing oppressive about recounting votes.

I don't see why the recount is such a big issue. I really don't.

http://www.theonion.com/video/5-things-know-about-election-recount-54771

800 jobs is a lot for a man who hasn't even yet taken office. Kinda pisses you off doesn't it?

Aren't progressives the first to tell us a working person spends his/her money in the community helping further other small business?

You are worried about $7 million? One golf vacation for Obama.

Who is going to pay? Who would pay if 800 unemployed needed relief?

Again, and for the next eight years, the progressive /socialist lefties biggest fear is Trump will be wildly successful.

3 Supreme court justices & 97 Judical appointments.

Go Donald.