OH the good old days how quickly the left forgets

[rightwinger]

Why not? Anyone running for President can win almost every state but if California and maybe one or two other states go the opposite way they would never win.

Bush never won in California and he managed to win

Ture, but I said one or two other states the number of states might have to be more

Bush took the Red States and managed to still win in 2000 and 2004. Gore/Kerry took California, New York and Illinois but still lost.

It shows the bias our system has towards small states that have low populations but still get 3 or 4 electoral votes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bush never won in California and he managed to win

Ture, but I said one or two other states the number of states might have to be more

Bush took the Red States and managed to still win in 2000 and 2004. Gore/Kerry took California, New York and Illinois but still lost.

It shows the bias our system has towards small states that have low populations but still get 3 or 4 electoral votes.

Thanks because of Texas and Fla. Stop tring to negate the voting affect of California

 

[rightwinger]

Ture, but I said one or two other states the number of states might have to be more

Bush took the Red States and managed to still win in 2000 and 2004. Gore/Kerry took California, New York and Illinois but still lost.

It shows the bias our system has towards small states that have low populations but still get 3 or 4 electoral votes.

Thanks because of Texas and Fla. Stop tring to negate the voting affect of California

You claim that once a candidate wins California it is almost impossible not to win. Recent elections show you are wrong.

Gore/Kerry took California, NY, Ill and PA (4 of the 6 biggest electorals) and still lost

It is the small states with overblown electoral votes to population that unfairly swing the elections

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bush took the Red States and managed to still win in 2000 and 2004. Gore/Kerry took California, New York and Illinois but still lost.

It shows the bias our system has towards small states that have low populations but still get 3 or 4 electoral votes.

Thanks because of Texas and Fla. Stop tring to negate the voting affect of California

You claim that once a candidate wins California it is almost impossible to win. Recent elections show you are wrong.

Gore/Kerry took California, NY, Ill and PA (4 of the 6 biggest electorals) and still lost

It is the small states with overblown electoral votes to population that unfairly swing the elections

I don't think I said it was impossible to win without California. But if you have California and just a five of the bigger elector states then you are a sure deal for winning

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ain't that gas!!!!!!!!!!! We had a White House full of crazies, and crazies in the streets. LMAO! Thanks for the video!!!

But where are those liberals now?

Tea Party?

I don't think so to racist

 

[mvymvy]

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

In 2004, 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

 

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. Now, policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), DC (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

 

[konradv]

I think a much more representitive Electoral College scheme would be to give a vote to whichever candidate wins a given Congressional district and two to whomever wins the state-wide vote.

 

[uscitizen]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs]YouTube - Patriotic drunk rednecks[/ame]

 

[del]

Bush took the Red States and managed to still win in 2000 and 2004. Gore/Kerry took California, New York and Illinois but still lost.

It shows the bias our system has towards small states that have low populations but still get 3 or 4 electoral votes.

Thanks because of Texas and Fla. Stop tring to negate the voting affect of California

You claim that once a candidate wins California it is almost impossible not to win. Recent elections show you are wrong.

Gore/Kerry took California, NY, Ill and PA (4 of the 6 biggest electorals) and still lost

It is the small states with overblown electoral votes to population that unfairly swing the elections

you mean like tennessee in 2000?