byrron:


The Electoral College should have been abolished years ago. It is archaic and displaces the votes of millions of Americans.

Often the argument for keeping this system is that people in big cities would always elect the President. This is simply false.

Abolishing the electoral college would allow 3rd parties to actually have footing, and Presidential candidates would actually spend time in more than just the current swing states.

People are tired of the duopoly of Republicans and Democrats, and while I don't see the two-party system disappearing overnight with the abolition of the EC, it would be an important first step.

NY State isn't all Democrats, and Florida isn't all Republicans.

Americans would have their voices be heard without the depression of voting that the Electoral College encourages.

No solid blue or red states would increase voter turnout, and if anyone is worried that there wouldn't be a clear winner in this situation, a rank choice voting system could be implemented as well.

Americans deserve to have their votes count instead of being discarded because of this ancient winner-take-all system.

Lastly, The EC was created because the founders didn’t trust the populace to make an educated decision, so they put the power in the hands of the EC voters, who were supposed to be more elite. How does that compare to the system today?

Are the people still incapable of making educated decisions today which was one of the factors that led to the creation of the EC?

Why don't the EC go ahead and vote amongst themselves and choose who becomes the president without me standing in the line for solid 5 hours just to cast my vote when in actuality it doesn't get the president elected but determines the EC vote?

Do you know how frustrating that is?

Haven't the US constitution been amended in various times by expunging some of the contents that were drafted by the founding father's which are no longer relevant in today's world and realities?

It confuses me that we still have the electoral college system in place when it is obviously now outdated and undemocratic.

Every other election besides the presidential election is decided by popular vote. Shouldn’t the most important election in the US be decided by the whole of the population?

People who argue that the electoral college should be kept in place because the founders wanted it that way should also remember that the founders also wrote slavery into the Constitution and the Constitution after so many years got amended and expunged slavery from it, then why can’t the constitution also be amended and get rid of the electoral college?

The EC has outlived it's usefulness and antiquated

So if I get you correctly, you want ONLY the popular votes to replace the electoral College?

Have you thought about the implications of that?
Well that means a president can be elected into office just by winning coast(s) he is more popular in and losing other coasts as long as the gathers enough vote in that coast(s) to win the popular vote. At the end of the day presidential elections will be won and lost in states or coast with the highest population. Smaller, less dense states, will just be USED just to augment their lead if there ever is a need for it.

It will be like the Nigerian election where the north always determine the winners in presidential elections. Regions like south south and south east can be lost as long as you win one region in the south, which is south west.

So applying that in the US, those less populous states in time will view their votes as nothing cause it doesn't determine the eventual winner. They would be negligible like votes in the south east and south south.

The implications of that again is presidential candidates from less populous states or less influential states can never win the presidency in America based on popular votes. Only states with high population density or influential states can bring forth a candidate, which in itself is not democratic.

So whether you go with EC or popular votes (like we have in Nigeria) , they will still have their issues, the point however shouldn't be on the system used in electioneering but rather if those entrusted to run that system are credible, that is a free and fair election without rigging.

Rigging of votes is the problem of democratic elections. Either in popular votes or EC, if no rigging the people's choice will be the end result but mind you both systems will still carry their flaws.

byrron:


For your information, I voted in this election and know more than enough about the electoral college and how it works here which is why I have been up all night just waiting to get the final results from Philadelphia so I can be rest assured that this divider in chief won't be in the WH come January 3 2021 but that still doesn't erase the fact the electoral college system is now primitive and the calls for it to be abolished here is getting louder.

Please justify your thoughts with proofs. What are wrong with it and how do you propose it be fixed

backnbeta:
Not good for the people

Wrong, it isn't. The electoral college works on a state level and its a winner takes all kind of system. Take for example California, it has 55 electoral College votes. If a republican gets the highest number of votes in California, it means the electoral college of California will give all their electoral votes to the Republican presidential candidate which is 55. The Democratic candidate will only take the votes casts for him but nothing from the electoral college.

So in this case above it is still the votes of the people that the electoral college works on.

Overall a presidential candidate can still win the highest number of votes and lose at the electoral college. How is this possible?

There are 52 states in the US, and all this states have different populations and different electoral college votes assigned to them. It's just like Nigeria, we have 36 states but they don't have the same population. Lagos, Kano, rivers etc have higher populations compared to the others, win this state with a great margin and you win the election in Nigeria.

In America the objective is almost similar, win the states with the most electoral college votes by winning majority of the votes in that state. Even if those states are 22 states and combined they have electoral college votes of 270 which is needed to win the presidential election, it is more important than winning remaining 26 states that have electoral college votes combined less than 270.

Now how each states are assigned electoral college votes is fair, so cheating is out of it. Each candidate knows what has to be done to get to 270 before election, and if they fail to meet it it's their fault.

Notatribalist:
So what's the need for everybody to go out and vote?

The electoral college works on a state level and its a winner takes all kind of system. Take for example California, it has 55 electoral College votes. If a republican gets the highest number of votes in California, it means the electoral college of California will give all their electoral votes to the Republican presidential candidate which is 55. The Democratic candidate will only take the votes casts for him but nothing from the electoral college.

So in this case above it is still the votes of the people that the electoral college works on.

Overall a presidential candidate can still win the highest number of votes and lose at the electoral college. How is this possible?

There are 52 states in the US, and all this states have different populations and different electoral college votes assigned to them. It's just like Nigeria, we have 36 states but they don't have the same population. Lagos, Kano, rivers etc have higher populations compared to the others, win this state with a great margin and you win the election in Nigeria.

In America the objective is almost similar, win the states with the most electoral college votes by winning majority of the votes in that state. Even if those states are 22 states and combined they have electoral college votes of 270 which is needed to win the presidential election, it is more important than winning remaining 26 states that have electoral college votes combined less than 270.

Now how each states are assigned electoral college votes is fair, so cheating is out of it. Each candidate knows what has to be done to get to 270 before election, and if they fail to meet it it's their fault.

byrron:


There is nothing democratic about the electoral college system where your vote only chooses those that will now vote on who becomes the president.

Wrong, it isn't. The electoral college works on a state level and its a winner takes all kind of system. Take for example California, it has 55 electoral College votes. If a republican gets the highest number of votes in California, it means the electoral college of California will give all their electoral votes to the Republican presidential candidate which is 55. The Democratic candidate will only take the votes casts for him but nothing from the electoral college.

So in this case above it is still the votes of the people that the electoral college works on.

Overall a presidential candidate can still win the highest number of votes and lose at the electoral college. How is this possible?

There are 52 states in the US, and all this states have different populations and different electoral college votes assigned to them. It's just like Nigeria, we have 36 states but they don't have the same population. Lagos, Kano, rivers etc have higher populations compared to the others, win this state with a great margin and you win the election in Nigeria.

In America the objective is almost similar, win the states with the most electoral college votes by winning majority of the votes in that state. Even if those states are 22 states and combined they have electoral college votes of 270 which is needed to win the presidential election, it is more important than winning remaining 26 states that have electoral college votes combined less than 270.

Now how each states are assigned electoral college votes is fair, so cheating is out of it. Each candidate knows what has to be done to get to 270 before election, and if they fail to meet it it's their fault.

Jaykrown:
But please, I have a question to ask.. If the electoral college has the final say to elect the president, then, what’s the essence of people going out to vote when their votes will not determine who wins at end of the day? Can’t they just use the votes of 538 electoral college members and save people the stress, or is there something am missing?

The electoral college works on a state level and its a winner takes all kind of system. Take for example California, it has 55 electoral College votes. If a republican gets the highest number of votes in California, it means the electoral college of California will give all their electoral votes to the Republican presidential candidate which is 55. The Democratic candidate will only take the votes casts for him but nothing from the electoral college.

So in this case above it is still the votes of the people that the electoral college works on.

Overall a presidential candidate can still win the highest number of votes and lose at the electoral college. How is this possible?

There are 52 states in the US, and all this states have different populations and different electoral college votes assigned to them. It's just like Nigeria, we have 36 states but they don't have the same population. Lagos, Kano, rivers etc have higher populations compared to the others, win this state with a great margin and you win the election in Nigeria.

In America the objective is almost similar, win the states with the most electoral college votes by winning majority of the votes in that state. Even if those states are 22 states and combined they have electoral college votes of 270 which is needed to win the presidential election, it is more important than winning remaining 26 states that have electoral college votes combined less than 270.

Now how each states are assigned electoral college votes is fair, so cheating is out of it. Each candidate knows what has to be done to get to 270 before election, and if they fail to meet it it's their fault.

dollarsplenty:
Electoral College is annti democracy, it suppresses the peoples will

Wrong, it isn't. The electoral college works on a state level and its a winner takes all kind of system. Take for example California, it has 55 electoral College votes. If a republican gets the highest number of votes in California, it means the electoral college of California will give all their electoral votes to the Republican presidential candidate which is 55. The Democratic candidate will only take the votes casts for him but nothing from the electoral college.

So in this case above it is still the votes of the people that the electoral college works on.

Overall a presidential candidate can still win the highest number of votes and lose at the electoral college. How is this possible?

There are 52 states in the US, and all this states have different populations and different electoral college votes assigned to them. It's just like Nigeria, we have 36 states but they don't have the same population. Lagos, Kano, rivers etc have higher populations compared to the others, win this state with a great margin and you win the election in Nigeria.

In America the objective is almost similar, win the states with the most electoral college votes by winning majority of the votes in that state. Even if those states are 22 states and combined they have electoral college votes of 270 which is needed to win the presidential election, it is more important than winning remaining 26 states that have electoral college votes combined less than 270.

Now how each states are assigned electoral college votes is fair, so cheating is out of it. Each candidate knows what has to be done to get to 270 before election, and if they fail to meet it it's their fault.

mosdii:
Often times, I hear people say I'm in a serious relationship, I'm in a serious relationship.
From the body language and attitude of most persons who claims to be in a serious relationship shows that they have possibly or probably seen that other or better half that can comfortably tie the knot with or hook up for better and for better.

In my view, I've come to a reasonable conclusion that a serious relationship is that relationship that is likely to end up in marriage ceteris paribus.
If a serious relationship, is the same thing as courtship. What then is a committed relationship?

From the conventional I'm in a serious relationship, the tide is gradually changing to I'm in a committed relationship.
Now, you will hear people say I'm in a committed relationship and it baffles me.

Is a committed relationship the climax of the dating game or it is slightly below the frequently used I'm in a serious relationship?

What then is the difference if there's any or are they one and same thing?

A serious relationship is a committed relationship and vice versa.

But let me add in both serious and committed relationships both parties have attained a level of MATURITY.

they now FEEL they know what the want in a relationship and no more childish games (hence the seriousness) and when they see that spec they want to hold on tightly (hence the commitment).

Just to add a little humor though -the secret to a committed and serious relationship for most people is because they KNOW they are getting OLD, both ladies and men. Most times it has nothing to do with MATURITY but more of BIOLOGY (that is the biological clock).

NawtiKingRealer:


Christianity no dey responsible 4 constitutional law wey no dey active nah. Na only christianity dey naija? Check non christian countries like china, russia. U wrong o

Christian are under the law of God which is even higher than that of the constitutional laws of Nigeria or any other country. To be Christian is to be Christ like. That means as a Christian you should try to imitate Christ before doing anything. Christ didn't do anything that was contrary to what his father would like.

If Nigerian pastors and Christians were 50% Christ-like, their actions won't even need to be regulated by constitutional laws of the land, they would be the example for the law and other faiths like muslims and traditional worshippers to imitate.

So guy you should reason what I said earlier. Nigeria has the highest number of fake pastors as shown by our lawlessness.

EVILFOREST:

Of Course I did.
And it's paying off.
KIDS grow in Wisdom and not Foolishness.
Your Investments are safer with such Ladies

Congrats bro and more happy years together.

EVILFOREST:

I guess WOMAN never surprise you before.. ?
When I wanted to marry, I specifically asked GOD for a Lady that thinks like a Man.
My Friends wondered why, when other men were busy asking for charismatic ladies.
I laughed at them because it is easier for God to allow Humans with common sense into Heaven than a Charismatic Fool.

Lol. So did you find?

Funkyswagzz:


Well for you it's all about sex.. buh I disagree with you on that one. I hope u are aware both genders interprete sex in a different manner when there's love. If sex is the major reason y I love my partner then there's no need to be in a relationship. You have to be a friend and a lover to your partner.

You got me wrong, I said "sex is a major part" of romantic love. Of cause romantic love includes companionship and supporting each other through thick and thin etc.

I simply wanted to correct your notion that romantic love has nothing to do with sex, that's wrong. Platonic love has nothing to do with sex. You have to be sexually attracted to your partner to have romantic love for them but the act of sex can only happen after marriage.

NawtiKingRealer:


Do d stats well. Genuine plenty 4 naija wela, but genuine 4 sa and ghana dey scare. So ghana and sa na baba 4 false prophets

Wrong. Where righteousness abound, lawlessness reduces. We have the highest number of pastors and even churches in the world, yet the average churchgoer is a criminal, just give him a slight opportunity and he will manifest it.

Many of the pastors dont call out their members involved in vile practices in Nigeria, be it in politics, government, private companies or sole business as long as you pay your tithe and other offerings they say the grace of God will cover such ones.

They don't know true righteousness but just money, money and more money. I'll tell you Nigeria has the highest number of fake pastors and followers. Other countries are still learning where we are. But they hold the record for gullible followers cause they can never challenge this men even if they step out of line.

lilmonarch:
some of these pastors are going through hell in the hands of ladies. Especially the single ones

Eya I feel for them. When they finally fall they will be called out by fellow ladies and men alike, the tempters will simply be pushed aside.

NawtiKingRealer:
South africa and ghana be trophy holders of false prophets

I think that record goes to Nigeria. The other countries hold records for most gullible followers

lilmonarch:
they're looking for horse band

Lol... So once it's time to look for a spouse they get so desperate to the point of loosing their senses?.... Wonderful

Funkyswagzz:
I really don't identify love as may feelings and affection shown to me. Rather physical support, financial support, understanding, care, encouragement, advice, ability to listen those are the real values of love.

Sex is good but it only validates the bond you share with your partner. It absolutely has nothing to do with love. If you really think she loves you because she had sex with you, my guy hmm you are swimming in a deep blue sea.

If she is willing to support you. If she's putting efforts to make you a better person. If she shares alot of her personal life with you and invite you into her life without any form of deceit my guy that is true love.

Women don't fall in love so easily. She has to study every little detail about you before she can fall in love with. She has to feel secure around you. The way she touch you -- does she play with you. My guy any lady that don't express herself around you is there to take something that belongs to you.

Don't be deceived by what you see. Every woman has a degree in pretence. Don't let her deceive you with her fine shape or beauty. If you meet a woman that is self made it happens to be she's in love, you will know it. You on the other hand have to be up and doing.

You just succeeded in describing platonic friendships. In such friendships love exist but not the romantic type.

Sex it a major part of love (that is showing love) but only in the right setting (marriage). If someone loves you either man or woman and isn't physically (that's sexually) attracted to you, that is not romantic love but just plain friendship.

So please don't confuse the two or yourself.

Could it be that those ladies are that gullible or is it staged?

Pancakeey:

I said he’s violent. What’s so difficult to see?
The guy is threatening her and you’re here saying I should not side one story.

In every situation I’ll always side with the oppressed. Plus she brought her problem to us. So yes, I’ll side with her.

This man is violent.

The man hasn't been VIOLENT based on the story the OP posted, he is only hurt and may be expressing his emotional trauma like every person in that situation. What we can conclude from it though, is that he may have that tendency.

Everyone male or female should be given a chance to redeem themselves, so innocent until proven guilty.

For now based on that story posted by OP, worse case scenario is he has a tendency towards violence and he should control it.

PinkPill:
#Admin please hide my identity.


My name is Rose (not real name). I am 22(f), from Igbo and a university undergraduate.


My family recently moved to Port Harcourt. That same month, a guy asked me out. (He's 27) We got along really well and I fell in love with him. We would call often and chat late into the night. I have never visited him, we only hang out in public. He said he's from Rivers State (he was lying), I later found out he's from a state in the Middle Belt region. He apologized


I noticed he is obsessed about me and always wants to know where I am or who I'm with. When I discovered that he's from the North, I completely lost my trust in him and he apologized.


I know that we would not end up together because my parents will never agree, so I started withdrawing and ghosting him.


Yesterday, he called and told me not to leave him that he can't bear it, and I'm the best thing that has ever happened to him. And he would marry me etc.


I told him I wasn't planning on leaving him that I was just busy. He said "Better, because if I leave him, he would come to my house and create a scene. And any day he calls and I don't pick, he will come to my mother to ask for his wife. He said I shouldn't do anything silly that would make him do that.

I was scared because from the way he sounds, he wasn't bluffing. He sounded so violent. I never noticed such character in him.


He called me today to apologise. Saying he loves me and I should never leave him. And he would do anything to make me happy.


Please advise me. How do I end this toxic relationship. Please Ignore my typo. I'm getting depressed

Minus the talks you guys have, has he INVESTED or is he currently INVESTING MONEY into you?

Some men get entitled when they feel they have BOUGHT your love over. If that is the case I will advice you stop collecting things from him and even return what you can back to him.

You also need not ghost him. Tell him over the phone in a respectful manner that you want out of the relationship. You may need to record this call for security reasons, in case he fails to end it amicably but starts to threaten your life or that of your family members.

In that case tell your family about it (cause any threat to life is serious and they need to know to defend themselves) and you (and your family) can report the matter also to the police with the recording as evidence. If need be the police and your family can reach out to his family to inform them about the ugly development. I believe at this point sanity should be restored to him.

Please be courteous as you go about this, not to complicate matters for yourself.

Hintona:
If it's true that men of every race especially sub saharan African men see light skinned women as more beautiful "subconsciously" than darker skinned women, then why did our fore fathers discriminate albinos?

N/B: I'm not trying to justify the discrimination against albinos or say light skinned women are less beautiful.

I just want to know if preference for light skinned women is society and media induced.

Trolls are allowed but I'll appreciate if your answer is a product of deep critical and constructive thinking. thanks.

Men love women of all shades and color.

So don't be bothered about that. As a lady you should look for men that love your skin color as it is e.g. Runtown with his very dark slim model girl friend.

Such men like that are plenty. If a lady feels guys prefer light skin girls to dark skin girls it's just a matter of her perspective and maybe self esteem.

Visualize how much oil reserve, Nigeria and the world has compared against the city of New York and other iconic buildings.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-OjFqJQMHI

NaijaOlosho:

Would you smile if it was a lady thief beaten like this?

As usual, flat eartheners run when they meet a genius there aren't prepared for. We know all the tricks they play from their little hand book.

Well "the mind is the greatest prison". They can live in self denial if that is their wish .

EMILO2STAY:
,

Sha answer my questions before the bragging.

EMILO2STAY:
I is now obvious that I have been wasting my time with you. Am done with you.

Iets share ideas, don't be a green horn.

EMILO2STAY:
you are beating about theMomma Bush.


The fact here is that on every single aircraft attitude indicator gyroscopes are the maintain a flat horizon.

The gyro is not referring to the spin of the earth but the spin of the disc or wheel mounted so it can spin. On its axis.

You obvioulsy do not know what your talking about.
What you presented are not fact.

If they are fact then prove this fact and tell me how does a gyroscope prove the spirit. Of the earth? Now let's go!!!

Your free lessons have expired. Read online, it's free.

Gyroscope is for globe eartheners, so don't get upset. Start a petition, take it to court or invent your own device. That's your issue to fix.

Mind you I still have unanswered questions on the other thread of yours by you. Please, please, please I am pleading with you kindly answer them. I want to tear your flat earth theory to pieces.

EMILO2STAY:
yes they are testable. the fact that I didn't put them there does not means you cannot observe them. From the observation of the moon it show that it is likely a plasma because the moon is translucent sometimes. hard ball of rock is not. It is on record that stars can be seen through the moon. And this is my observable respectable and testable proof.

Which observable proof have you presented? None.


If you have any thing you call facts or proof pls present them.
This will be the last time I will tell you so, if you don't, don't quote me again. I am not here for childish games.

Honestly I kinda feel pity for you now. I'm being serious now. You don't need proof, what you need is God coming down from heaven to silently whisper to you that the earth is round. Cavendish, Schuler etc won't help you much as you think you are fighting a righteous fight for God.

I don't want to toy with you cause I am capable of it but your proof and science are very weak. I'll still manage with you as long as you stick around.