Sore Losers Pushing to End Electoral Colleges: Heading to Courts

Originally Posted By: songdogI just don't think it'll happen, even with the big dollars backing it.

Probably not, but how many times will stuff like this go unchallenged by the republican voters in America?
 
I actually agree with a FEW of his points(with a big caveat). I don't like the "winner take all" either. Maybe it makes sense, but to me it doesn't seem fair. I would be very unhappy if I lived in rural California and my vote ALWAYS went to a democrat.

Now the caveat. Before ANY changes, there HAS to be voter ID laws. PERIOD.

My question to the Democrats pushing these "changes" would be, "why do you want to rely on a "popular vote" yet put no safeguards in place to ensure THAT vote is accurate and legal?" Rhetorical question because we already KNOW the answer.

THe electoral college diminishes the impact of the fraud the democrats are pushing.
 
there is one simple reason why the electoral college was put into place, and the 2016 election is a perfect example.


if anyone needs proof, just show them this picture

election-2016-county-map.png



end of discussion.
 
I'm glad hillary lost, and I think the ec needs to go.

The argument that crops up, if the popular vote rules that only the most populated areas will get attention is laughable. Because that's exactly what the ec ensures is going to happen. As is, unless you either live somewhere that the results are going to be a toss up or you will be voting along with your local mainstream, your vote is meaningless. Voting is a waste of time in most of the country. You only need to win 10 states to be president. The other 47
laugh.gif
don't count.

I think you would see greater participation if it was the other way around.
 
Originally Posted By: NdIndyI'm glad hillary lost, and I think the ec needs to go.

The argument that crops up, if the popular vote rules that only the most populated areas will get attention is laughable. Because that's exactly what the ec ensures is going to happen. As is, unless you either live somewhere that the results are going to be a toss up or you will be voting along with your local mainstream, your vote is meaningless. Voting is a waste of time in most of the country. You only need to win 10 states to be president. The other 47
laugh.gif
don't count.

I think you would see greater participation if it was the other way around.

I agree with a lot of this. The people pushing for this assume that the popular vote results would be the same if the ec was gone. That's simply not probable imo. Think of all the California Republicans that don't bother to vote in the general. There is no reason for them to because it's a lost cause and the same goes for NY, everywhere really. The opposite is true in Texas, here in NE, etc.
 
Yep. Personally I registered to vote for the first time in my life before the last election. Before I moved here it wasn't worth my time to just take part in a poll. You either voted republican just so you can say "me too" or you voted Democrat knowing there was exactly 0 chance of your side winning.
 
I think the EC still serves the middle of the country pretty well. It actually gives disproportional value to small population states. Without it, we really, truly won't matter. Not that we matter much now. But there are as many people in some coastal counties as there are in some western states.

Los Angeles county has more people than Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Nevada all put together. San Diego and Orange counties each have as many or more people as any intermountain state does.

Candidates be stupid to waste any time on my part of the country without an EC. Ditto those small (republican) counties in California. Just not enough people there to move the meter against the coasts. Get north and interior in California and all those counties combined add up to just a fraction of the big coastal counties in SoCal.

East coast? Forget about it...

Keep the EC.

- DAA
 
if anyone on this planet should have known how a presidential election is won in this country, it would have to be hillary. she was part of 2 winning campaigns with bill, ran one failed attempt for herself where she did not win the nomination & then her 2nd where she did, after a lifetime of scheming for the position.

the fact that she did not run her campaign to win the necessary EC votes is itself proof of her incompetency for the job.It's not like the EC was gamed somehow. There were no electors who were supposed to vote for her but flipped & voted for trump -though there was open talk of having them flip for her in exactly that way in order to deliver the win to her.

No, trump won the EC votes, not only enough to win but to do so in a massive butt whooping landslide. She knew better, or should have, was reportedly advised to correct her campaign to address the failings and didn't & she LOST. properly and as intended.
 
Watching the melt downs was very much entertaining. First election I've ever watched as well. Typically I just go to bed and see who won the next day.

Watching some of the media go from Hillary is guaranteed, Trumps path is sooo limited, to Ok, trump has a couple paths now, but Hillary will still win, to finally Hillary has almost no chance! Nooooooooo! was good TV.

And then the crying, oh lord the crying
laugh.gif


Anyway, having lived in WY for so long it was pretty evident how much of a non entity it is. The other argument that small populations actually count more per vote is silly. 99% of nothing, still nothing, just as nothing as 1% of nothing.

But, here is what all campaigns focus on and why.

California (55 votes)
Texas (38 votes)
Florida (29 votes)
New York (29 votes)
Illinois (20 votes)
Pennsylvania (20 votes)
Ohio (18 votes)
Georgia (16 votes)
Michigan (16 votes)
North Carolina (15 votes)
New Jersey (14 votes)

11 states, exactly 270 votes. They see the most money, the most time, the most everything. Because with those 11, you're president if you pull them all. Hillary's big mistake was living solely by that map and assuming she would get almost all of them and surely there would be enough of the nobody states to push her over the top. Trump spent a little more time on the next section down in order to eat away at Hillarys assumed lead. Every time he picked up one of the 11 it made the others more important, and they were areas Hillary spent no time on. She lost primarily because of her hubris.

And TBH she was only running because of cheating to start.

I watched some of the democrat primaries and was pretty disgusted on how they are run. No written vote whatsoever. Just a 'voice' vote, 'judged' by 1 person in a room of 20-50 voters.

I remember distinctly 1 were they call for Bernie, various room full of yay's, then Hillary, various room full of yays that on TV sounded pretty much identical. Followed by "WE WON! IT'S HILLARY!"

1st, [beeep] was that supposed to be? That's how you decide if you want to order mexican or chinese for lunch, not how you pick the president elect. Although to be honest any office I've been in at least does the 'raise your hand for mexican' thing so you can actually count.

2nd. "WE" won? Shouldn't the person doing the completely arbitrary 'vote' collection be impartial?

I've always 'known' that our process if F'd up, but actually seeing it happen was an eye opener.
 
California has about 14 times as many people but only 9 times as many EC votes as Utah. That is giving disproportionate value to the small population states. Period. You can have the opinion it doesn't matter if you wish but you can't disclaim the simple obvious fact that it exists. Trump used that to his advantage and Hillary failed to. I'm not sure she could have done anything about it had she tried, but we'll never know.

How going to a popular vote would effect turnout is impossible to predict but it can and would cut both ways.

The only data point I really need to see is that Democrat turnout was about average, Republican and Independent turnout surged, and Hillary still won the popular vote.

Keep the EC. The middle of the country will be doomed with a popular vote.

- DAA
 
Good points Dave. The simple fact that the Dems push to eliminate and Repubs want to keep it is probably all one needs to know.
 
Originally Posted By: DAACalifornia has about 14 times as many people but only 9 times as many EC votes as Utah. That is giving disproportionate value to the small population states. Period. You can have the opinion it doesn't matter if you wish but you can't disclaim the simple obvious fact that it exists. Trump used that to his advantage and Hillary failed to. I'm not sure she could have done anything about it had she tried, but we'll never know.

How going to a popular vote would effect turnout is impossible to predict but it can and would cut both ways.

The only data point I really need to see is that Democrat turnout was about average, Republican and Independent turnout surged, and Hillary still won the popular vote.

Keep the EC. The middle of the country will be doomed with a popular vote.

- DAA
Not true. Democrat turnout was lower than any year since 1996. But so was the republicans. Percentage wise it was almost a 50/50 split. The last time it was that close was bush/gore.
 
If it goes popular vote, the 2nd Amendment is done, as is the country as we know it. It will be a sham government of all lefties for the rest of time. With the voter fraud, the illegals voting, the felons being allowed to vote, it would be all over for the right.
 
Originally Posted By: 204 ARGood points Dave. The simple fact that the Dems push to eliminate and Repubs want to keep it is probably all one needs to know.

That's it! Words to live by.

The end of the line is coming for Republicans/Conservatives, and it is happening fast.

Why, you may ask? Our education system is run by Communists/Lefties/Progressives, many of our government workers are Communists/Lefties/Progressives, even our churches have been infiltrated by Communists/Lefties/Progressives.

They are wolves in sheeps clothing.

Wherever you live, if you have the chance to vote for school vouchers, please do so. Let the parents decide which school their kids attend, Left, Right or Religious, let the parent decide.

As Vladimir Lenin said "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
 
Originally Posted By: DAACalifornia has about 14 times as many people but only 9 times as many EC votes as Utah. That is giving disproportionate value to the small population states. Period. You can have the opinion it doesn't matter if you wish but you can't disclaim the simple obvious fact that it exists. Trump used that to his advantage and Hillary failed to. I'm not sure she could have done anything about it had she tried, but we'll never know.

How going to a popular vote would effect turnout is impossible to predict but it can and would cut both ways.

The only data point I really need to see is that Democrat turnout was about average, Republican and Independent turnout surged, and Hillary still won the popular vote.

Keep the EC. The middle of the country will be doomed with a popular vote.

- DAA


cali wouldnt be so disproportionate if they only counted citizens instead of residents to determine the # of electoral votes.

just sayin.
 
Quote:cali wouldnt be so disproportionate if they only counted legal citizens instead of residents to determine the # of electoral votes.

just sayin.

Fixed it for ya, Plant.
grin.gif


Regards,
hm
 
Back
Top