11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[Pilot1]

But to repeat, only 5 presidential elections have ever ended with a candidate in office that did not win the popular vote. While I realize that a national popular vote system would likely change the dynamics of overall voting somewhat, to this point having the popular vote winner in office has not led to "one homogenous collective."

We were NEVER this polarized. We are like two distinct countries. One is Urban, progressive, and democrat, and I am including "SUBURBS" in Urban, as many, if not most of them are also Democrat now also. So we have big Metro Areas controlling entire states to be Democrat. Look at a county voting map.

The other is semi rural, and rural which are largely Republican.

The Democrats have gone so far Left that Republicans are saying enough is enough, we don't want the very nature of America that radically changed. We don't want Fundamental Transformation.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Without the EC states "will be essentially meaningless." That would seem to indicate the meaning or purpose of states has to do with the EC and electing the president. That or, perhaps, it is another claim that somehow the functions of government will change dependent upon the method by which presidents are elected.

The state laws will eventually be superseded by Federal laws as the large population centers will dictate the outcome of the Presidential election. Large metro areas are ALL Democrat, and liberal/progressive. Eventually, even the more conservative states will succumb to that. It will be one homogenous collective.

But to repeat, only 5 presidential elections have ever ended with a candidate in office that did not win the popular vote. While I realize that a national popular vote system would likely change the dynamics of overall voting somewhat, to this point having the popular vote winner in office has not led to "one homogenous collective."

There's a difference between correlation and causation. Naturally, the winner of the Presidential Election will usually be the same person who won the popular vote, the results have a strong correlation for obvious reasons, but the Electoral College was made primarily to negate an overwhelming popular vote being the winner.

Let's pretend that EVERY person in California voted Democrat, but only a mere 100 people voted Republican in every other one of the 49 States and not a single Dem vote.

In this hypothetical situation the Democrat nominee would win the popular vote by 99.99% and tens of millions of votes numerically, but would still lose the EC vote by more than 90%.

The EC also inadvertently shields the Presidential Election from mass voter fraud in one particular state or district, especially in this modern computer age.

Suppose some clever computer geeks contracted to maintain election machines in Texas decide to rig the election in favor of the Republicans (using a liberal storyline, pretend these are racist white computer geeks that don't want another black nominiee in the White House) adding 100,000-150,000 R votes in a distribution across the several counties/districts in Texas that matched the actual population distribution of Texas, making it very hard to detect (if ever detected at all, since 100k-150k is not that obscene of a number to add in Texas).

In a razor-thin election 100k-150k may actually tip the balance, and thus California must allocate its Electoral Votes to the R, because the R won the national popular vote...epic fail. Even worse, imagine if this fraud is discovered 5-6 months later, after the R is inaugurated?

Does the election of 2000 (Al Gore vs Bush) in Florida ring a bell?

 

[hadit]

l

And, as always, if you don't like something the Constitution says, you're welcome to amend it. The Founders decided that the presidency is a unique role that should not be decided by a popularity contest. The states are allowed to select their leaders however they like.

"However they like" would include choosing electors based on the national popular vote, wouldn't it?

Apples and oranges. Electors are chosen to elect the PRESIDENT. State leaders are governors, etc.

If you're trying to say that states can cast their electoral votes however they wish, they can to a certain extent. They are certainly not required to follow any other states' lead. Should they follow the big states they would also have to face their own citizens' reaction to having their votes nullified.

I'm not arguing in favor of the compact, I'm merely arguing that it seems likely to be legal and Constitutional.

I'm not sure what the apples and oranges comment is directed at.

"States choosing their leaders"is most emphatically NOT the same as "states choosing their electors".

Ah ha! I must have missed that when I read the post, I was thinking it said electors. Thanks for the correction!

States (specifically state legislatures) are allowed to choose their electors pretty much however they like, as well.

That is true.

 

[Montrovant]

If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states. They will be essentially meaningless, and we can one big collective like the USSR.

Does that mean the only purpose of having states is to elect the president?

What you should ask is: What is the purpose of the Federal Government? Not, "What is the purpose of the States." The purpose of the Federal Government is found in Article I+ II, Article III and Article IV:

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Article III (Judiciary) clearly states that the federal Courts are to settle disputes between states.

Article I+II allow the federal government to use military force to suppress insurrections, rebellions and to enforce express provisions of the US Constitution (for instance the feds could use military force against Long Island if it tried to secede from New York without Albany's consent due to the express constitutional provision that no segment of a State may secede and erect its own boundaries within a State defined and protected by the Federal Constitution).

The Congress is the body that decides whether or not to use military force against enemies (foreign or domestic) and the President is the one who decides to use such forces (Command in Chief), thus the States that assented to the Constitution did some to gain these protections from the Federal Government; however, assuming only that they have an equal voice in how the Federal Government proceeds:

The small States asked for a Senate.
The large States asked for House of Reps.
The Founders compromised and gave us both, checking popular and state powers.
Future states, small and large, applied to join the Union, since each had an equal voice in legislative power and choice of the executive (President). States with tiny populations get 3 Electoral votes...giving them more of a voice then they would have under a popular system, but no where near enough of a voice to upset the balance of the more populous States.

------------------------------
Democrats are willing to turn a blind eye to how the Constitution came to be with its series of compromises between large and small states, and separately, Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

The same arguments and reasons for these compromises between the small and large states remain valid today: Smaller states (by population, but equal or larger landmass) will not tolerate their voice being nullified by larger states (by population with same or lesser landmass).

It's these compromises that created the Constitution as we know it and made both small and large states (by population) comfortable with joining the Union. Undoing these compromises without the consent of the smaller states (with amending the Constitution with the consent of 3/4 of the States) in order to benefit the more popular states (cities to be honest) will only lead to mass secession and civil war.

I wasn't commenting on my opinion of the purpose of states or the federal government, I was questioning the statement Pilot1 made, which seemed to imply that the Electoral College is the purpose of states.

 

[Pilot1]

[

I wasn't commenting on my opinion of the purpose of states or the federal government, I was questioning the statement Pilot1 made, which seemed to imply that the Electoral College is the purpose of states.

Please show me where I said the EC was the sole purpose of the states. There are many purposes of a State. Our country is based on the POWER of the States, and is a collection of States, not a "Collective" which abolishing the EC would turn it into.

 

[Montrovant]

Without the EC states "will be essentially meaningless." That would seem to indicate the meaning or purpose of states has to do with the EC and electing the president. That or, perhaps, it is another claim that somehow the functions of government will change dependent upon the method by which presidents are elected.

The state laws will eventually be superseded by Federal laws as the large population centers will dictate the outcome of the Presidential election. Large metro areas are ALL Democrat, and liberal/progressive. Eventually, even the more conservative states will succumb to that. It will be one homogenous collective.

But to repeat, only 5 presidential elections have ever ended with a candidate in office that did not win the popular vote. While I realize that a national popular vote system would likely change the dynamics of overall voting somewhat, to this point having the popular vote winner in office has not led to "one homogenous collective."

There's a difference between correlation and causation. Naturally, the winner of the Presidential Election will usually be the same person who won the popular vote, the results have a strong correlation for obvious reasons, but the Electoral College was made primarily to negate an overwhelming popular vote being the winner.

Let's pretend that EVERY person in California voted Democrat, but only a mere 100 people voted Republican in every other one of the 49 States and not a single Dem vote.

In this hypothetical situation the Democrat nominee would win the popular vote by 99.99% and tens of millions of votes numerically, but would still lose the EC vote by more than 90%.

The EC also inadvertently shields the Presidential Election from mass voter fraud in one particular state or district, especially in this modern computer age.

Suppose some clever computer geeks contracted to maintain election machines in Texas decide to rig the election in favor of the Republicans (using a liberal storyline, pretend these are racist white computer geeks that don't want another black nominiee in the White House) adding 100,000-150,000 R votes in a distribution across the several counties/districts in Texas that matched the actual population distribution of Texas, making it very hard to detect (if ever detected at all, since 100k-150k is not that obscene of a number to add in Texas).

In a razor-thin election 100k-150k may actually tip the balance, and thus California must allocate its Electoral Votes to the R, because the R won the national popular vote...epic fail. Even worse, imagine if this fraud is discovered 5-6 months later, after the R is inaugurated?

Does the election of 2000 (Al Gore vs Bush) in Florida ring a bell?

I'm not sure I understand how the EC would be preventing mass fraud in your scenario.

 

[Montrovant]

[

I wasn't commenting on my opinion of the purpose of states or the federal government, I was questioning the statement Pilot1 made, which seemed to imply that the Electoral College is the purpose of states.

Please show me where I said the EC was the sole purpose of the states. There are many purposes of a State. Our country is based on the POWER of the States, and is a collection of States, not a "Collective" which abolishing the EC would turn it into.

You said "If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states." If the states have other purposes than the EC (which they certainly do) why would getting rid of the EC mean states should be abolished? Those other purposes still exist regardless of the method of electing the president.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Without the EC states "will be essentially meaningless." That would seem to indicate the meaning or purpose of states has to do with the EC and electing the president. That or, perhaps, it is another claim that somehow the functions of government will change dependent upon the method by which presidents are elected.

The state laws will eventually be superseded by Federal laws as the large population centers will dictate the outcome of the Presidential election. Large metro areas are ALL Democrat, and liberal/progressive. Eventually, even the more conservative states will succumb to that. It will be one homogenous collective.

But to repeat, only 5 presidential elections have ever ended with a candidate in office that did not win the popular vote. While I realize that a national popular vote system would likely change the dynamics of overall voting somewhat, to this point having the popular vote winner in office has not led to "one homogenous collective."

There's a difference between correlation and causation. Naturally, the winner of the Presidential Election will usually be the same person who won the popular vote, the results have a strong correlation for obvious reasons, but the Electoral College was made primarily to negate an overwhelming popular vote being the winner.

Let's pretend that EVERY person in California voted Democrat, but only a mere 100 people voted Republican in every other one of the 49 States and not a single Dem vote.

In this hypothetical situation the Democrat nominee would win the popular vote by 99.99% and tens of millions of votes numerically, but would still lose the EC vote by more than 90%.

The EC also inadvertently shields the Presidential Election from mass voter fraud in one particular state or district, especially in this modern computer age.

Suppose some clever computer geeks contracted to maintain election machines in Texas decide to rig the election in favor of the Republicans (using a liberal storyline, pretend these are racist white computer geeks that don't want another black nominiee in the White House) adding 100,000-150,000 R votes in a distribution across the several counties/districts in Texas that matched the actual population distribution of Texas, making it very hard to detect (if ever detected at all, since 100k-150k is not that obscene of a number to add in Texas).

In a razor-thin election 100k-150k may actually tip the balance, and thus California must allocate its Electoral Votes to the R, because the R won the national popular vote...epic fail. Even worse, imagine if this fraud is discovered 5-6 months later, after the R is inaugurated?

Does the election of 2000 (Al Gore vs Bush) in Florida ring a bell?

I'm not sure I understand how the EC would be preventing mass fraud in your scenario.

Under the pact these 11 States are in, fraud in one State can steal the EC votes of all the other States. That can't happen under the Founder's system.

 

[Pilot1]

[

I wasn't commenting on my opinion of the purpose of states or the federal government, I was questioning the statement Pilot1 made, which seemed to imply that the Electoral College is the purpose of states.

Please show me where I said the EC was the sole purpose of the states. There are many purposes of a State. Our country is based on the POWER of the States, and is a collection of States, not a "Collective" which abolishing the EC would turn it into.

You said "If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states." If the states have other purposes than the EC (which they certainly do) why would getting rid of the EC mean states should be abolished? Those other purposes still exist regardless of the method of electing the president.

I stand by that statement, but that isn't saying the EC is the state's sole purpose. If the EC is abolished we will have one party rule in the Presidency, as the large metro areas will control that. If the Dems were to gain control of Congress too, they could pass laws that would supersede the laws in the more conservative states. So yes, just abolish states.

Reading comprehension is a good thing. Try it sometime.

 

[hadit]

l

I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?

The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?

If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?

I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.

Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.

This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.

And, as always, if you don't like something the Constitution says, you're welcome to amend it. The Founders decided that the presidency is a unique role that should not be decided by a popularity contest. The states are allowed to select their leaders however they like.

"However they like" would include choosing electors based on the national popular vote, wouldn't it?

Apples and oranges. Electors are chosen to elect the PRESIDENT. State leaders are governors, etc.

If you're trying to say that states can cast their electoral votes however they wish, they can to a certain extent. They are certainly not required to follow any other states' lead. Should they follow the big states they would also have to face their own citizens' reaction to having their votes nullified.

Once AGAIN states are ALREADY nullifying their citizens' votes, and have been doing so for two hundred years. Whether State X "follows the lead" of States A, B, C, D etc, or whether it "follows the lead" of its own election's plurality, EITHER ONE nullifies its own citizens' votes as soon as that state's Electors go to Congress and claims a unanimous selection, i.e. as soon as WTA kicks in.

This has been going on for two centuries dood.

Doing away with WTA would be a positive step, no doubt. Doing away with the popular vote altogether would put the focus back where it was intended to be, the House.

 

[Montrovant]

Without the EC states "will be essentially meaningless." That would seem to indicate the meaning or purpose of states has to do with the EC and electing the president. That or, perhaps, it is another claim that somehow the functions of government will change dependent upon the method by which presidents are elected.

The state laws will eventually be superseded by Federal laws as the large population centers will dictate the outcome of the Presidential election. Large metro areas are ALL Democrat, and liberal/progressive. Eventually, even the more conservative states will succumb to that. It will be one homogenous collective.

But to repeat, only 5 presidential elections have ever ended with a candidate in office that did not win the popular vote. While I realize that a national popular vote system would likely change the dynamics of overall voting somewhat, to this point having the popular vote winner in office has not led to "one homogenous collective."

There's a difference between correlation and causation. Naturally, the winner of the Presidential Election will usually be the same person who won the popular vote, the results have a strong correlation for obvious reasons, but the Electoral College was made primarily to negate an overwhelming popular vote being the winner.

Let's pretend that EVERY person in California voted Democrat, but only a mere 100 people voted Republican in every other one of the 49 States and not a single Dem vote.

In this hypothetical situation the Democrat nominee would win the popular vote by 99.99% and tens of millions of votes numerically, but would still lose the EC vote by more than 90%.

The EC also inadvertently shields the Presidential Election from mass voter fraud in one particular state or district, especially in this modern computer age.

Suppose some clever computer geeks contracted to maintain election machines in Texas decide to rig the election in favor of the Republicans (using a liberal storyline, pretend these are racist white computer geeks that don't want another black nominiee in the White House) adding 100,000-150,000 R votes in a distribution across the several counties/districts in Texas that matched the actual population distribution of Texas, making it very hard to detect (if ever detected at all, since 100k-150k is not that obscene of a number to add in Texas).

In a razor-thin election 100k-150k may actually tip the balance, and thus California must allocate its Electoral Votes to the R, because the R won the national popular vote...epic fail. Even worse, imagine if this fraud is discovered 5-6 months later, after the R is inaugurated?

Does the election of 2000 (Al Gore vs Bush) in Florida ring a bell?

I'm not sure I understand how the EC would be preventing mass fraud in your scenario.

Under the pact these 11 States are in, fraud in one State can steal the EC votes of all the other States. That can't happen under the Founder's system.

OK, that makes sense.

On the other hand, one can argue that the EC (at least with the winner-take-all system we have now) provides an opportunity for fraud to be more broad-reaching. Those 100,000-150,000 votes in Texas are not likely to change the outcome of a national popular vote for president, but if they were to change the EC votes in Texas, that would be a 38 vote swing.

There are pros and cons to the WTA EC system and a national popular vote system. It's too bad that more states don't adopt a system which tries to improve on the current paradigm.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The state laws will eventually be superseded by Federal laws as the large population centers will dictate the outcome of the Presidential election. Large metro areas are ALL Democrat, and liberal/progressive. Eventually, even the more conservative states will succumb to that. It will be one homogenous collective.

But to repeat, only 5 presidential elections have ever ended with a candidate in office that did not win the popular vote. While I realize that a national popular vote system would likely change the dynamics of overall voting somewhat, to this point having the popular vote winner in office has not led to "one homogenous collective."

There's a difference between correlation and causation. Naturally, the winner of the Presidential Election will usually be the same person who won the popular vote, the results have a strong correlation for obvious reasons, but the Electoral College was made primarily to negate an overwhelming popular vote being the winner.

Let's pretend that EVERY person in California voted Democrat, but only a mere 100 people voted Republican in every other one of the 49 States and not a single Dem vote.

In this hypothetical situation the Democrat nominee would win the popular vote by 99.99% and tens of millions of votes numerically, but would still lose the EC vote by more than 90%.

The EC also inadvertently shields the Presidential Election from mass voter fraud in one particular state or district, especially in this modern computer age.

Suppose some clever computer geeks contracted to maintain election machines in Texas decide to rig the election in favor of the Republicans (using a liberal storyline, pretend these are racist white computer geeks that don't want another black nominiee in the White House) adding 100,000-150,000 R votes in a distribution across the several counties/districts in Texas that matched the actual population distribution of Texas, making it very hard to detect (if ever detected at all, since 100k-150k is not that obscene of a number to add in Texas).

In a razor-thin election 100k-150k may actually tip the balance, and thus California must allocate its Electoral Votes to the R, because the R won the national popular vote...epic fail. Even worse, imagine if this fraud is discovered 5-6 months later, after the R is inaugurated?

Does the election of 2000 (Al Gore vs Bush) in Florida ring a bell?

I'm not sure I understand how the EC would be preventing mass fraud in your scenario.

Under the pact these 11 States are in, fraud in one State can steal the EC votes of all the other States. That can't happen under the Founder's system.

OK, that makes sense.

On the other hand, one can argue that the EC (at least with the winner-take-all system we have now) provides an opportunity for fraud to be more broad-reaching. Those 100,000-150,000 votes in Texas are not likely to change the outcome of a national popular vote for president, but if they were to change the EC votes in Texas, that would be a 38 vote swing.

There are pros and cons to the WTA EC system and a national popular vote system. It's too bad that more states don't adopt a system which tries to improve on the current paradigm.

I got that gut feeling that the system would quickly lead to one party rule where 90% of the people magically vote one way, except in this case they would never have to be that obviously fraudulent, since they only need to get 51%.

 

[Montrovant]

[

I wasn't commenting on my opinion of the purpose of states or the federal government, I was questioning the statement Pilot1 made, which seemed to imply that the Electoral College is the purpose of states.

Please show me where I said the EC was the sole purpose of the states. There are many purposes of a State. Our country is based on the POWER of the States, and is a collection of States, not a "Collective" which abolishing the EC would turn it into.

You said "If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states." If the states have other purposes than the EC (which they certainly do) why would getting rid of the EC mean states should be abolished? Those other purposes still exist regardless of the method of electing the president.

I stand by that statement, but that isn't saying the EC is the state's sole purpose. If the EC is abolished we will have one party rule in the Presidency, as the large metro areas will control that. If the Dems were to gain control of Congress too, they could pass laws that would supersede the laws in the more conservative states. So yes, just abolish states.

Reading comprehension is a good thing. Try it sometime.

My reading comprehension was not an issue. You simply did not explain why a popular vote system would lead to abolition of states, so I asked a question based on what you did say.

Why do you think that only 5 candidates have become president without winning the popular vote? Why, if Democrats would always win a national popular vote, have numerous non-Democrats won presidential elections while winning the popular vote?

 

[Montrovant]

But to repeat, only 5 presidential elections have ever ended with a candidate in office that did not win the popular vote. While I realize that a national popular vote system would likely change the dynamics of overall voting somewhat, to this point having the popular vote winner in office has not led to "one homogenous collective."

There's a difference between correlation and causation. Naturally, the winner of the Presidential Election will usually be the same person who won the popular vote, the results have a strong correlation for obvious reasons, but the Electoral College was made primarily to negate an overwhelming popular vote being the winner.

Let's pretend that EVERY person in California voted Democrat, but only a mere 100 people voted Republican in every other one of the 49 States and not a single Dem vote.

In this hypothetical situation the Democrat nominee would win the popular vote by 99.99% and tens of millions of votes numerically, but would still lose the EC vote by more than 90%.

The EC also inadvertently shields the Presidential Election from mass voter fraud in one particular state or district, especially in this modern computer age.

Suppose some clever computer geeks contracted to maintain election machines in Texas decide to rig the election in favor of the Republicans (using a liberal storyline, pretend these are racist white computer geeks that don't want another black nominiee in the White House) adding 100,000-150,000 R votes in a distribution across the several counties/districts in Texas that matched the actual population distribution of Texas, making it very hard to detect (if ever detected at all, since 100k-150k is not that obscene of a number to add in Texas).

In a razor-thin election 100k-150k may actually tip the balance, and thus California must allocate its Electoral Votes to the R, because the R won the national popular vote...epic fail. Even worse, imagine if this fraud is discovered 5-6 months later, after the R is inaugurated?

Does the election of 2000 (Al Gore vs Bush) in Florida ring a bell?

I'm not sure I understand how the EC would be preventing mass fraud in your scenario.

Under the pact these 11 States are in, fraud in one State can steal the EC votes of all the other States. That can't happen under the Founder's system.

OK, that makes sense.

On the other hand, one can argue that the EC (at least with the winner-take-all system we have now) provides an opportunity for fraud to be more broad-reaching. Those 100,000-150,000 votes in Texas are not likely to change the outcome of a national popular vote for president, but if they were to change the EC votes in Texas, that would be a 38 vote swing.

There are pros and cons to the WTA EC system and a national popular vote system. It's too bad that more states don't adopt a system which tries to improve on the current paradigm.

I got that gut feeling that the system would quickly lead to one party rule where 90% of the people magically vote one way, except in this case they would never have to be that obviously fraudulent, since they only need to get 51%.

From what I've read, technically a candidate only needs to get the right 25% or so of votes to win the presidency in the current EC system. That would be just over 50% in the 11 states which can give 270 electoral votes together.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

/——/ #GCBTM. Give California Back To Mexico

 

[The2ndAmendment]

From what I've read, technically a candidate only needs to get the right 25% or so of votes to win the presidency in the current EC system. That would be just over 50% in the 11 states which can give 270 electoral votes together.

To be honest, I thought of an even worse scenario, where a group rigged the 51% every election while switching between R's and D's to make it look real, meanwhile you just get Bush's and Clinton's over and over, all with the mainstream media predicting a landslide victory for the winning candidate each time...like in all the other one-party rule nations in this world.

Imagine trying to convince people that mass fraud was occurring under such a system where power appears to change hands from R's to D's?

Of course the most rabid conspiracy theorists will claim this already happens, even though the entire R and D establishment is opposed to Trump...lol

 

[FA_Q2]

Then the campaigns would run differently aimed at the popular vote. Trump would have focused on Blue states to encourage Republicans and Blue dog Democrats to vote for him. Under the EC, candidates focus on battleground states. I live in the People's Republic of New York and know Republicans who have to be consoled to vote because they know the state will go democRAT and their vote doesn't matter.

Guy, you are working on the assumption that Trump really wanted to win and had a plan to win. He didn't. This was a branding exercise gone horribly wrong.

a bad system failed miserably... that's all that happened here. If we had a popular vote, and everyone in every state knew their vote really counted, you wouldn't have had twits voting for third party candidates like Stein and Johnson to show what hipsters they were.

Trump did not want to win, clearly. That is why he conspired with Russia to illegally influence the election.

Does the cognitive dissonance hurt or are you used to it already?

 

[OklaSusie]

If they are dem states does it really change anything.....wouldn't the dem alrdy have won all of em

True, but with the Democratic Party's mass voter fraud they could flip a few states. The other possibility is that it could backfire on them. They could be screwing over their own voters. There might be some big legal battles with this one.

Bullcrap. That voter fraud myth is typical right wing crap.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Then the campaigns would run differently aimed at the popular vote. Trump would have focused on Blue states to encourage Republicans and Blue dog Democrats to vote for him. Under the EC, candidates focus on battleground states. I live in the People's Republic of New York and know Republicans who have to be consoled to vote because they know the state will go democRAT and their vote doesn't matter.

Guy, you are working on the assumption that Trump really wanted to win and had a plan to win. He didn't. This was a branding exercise gone horribly wrong.

a bad system failed miserably... that's all that happened here. If we had a popular vote, and everyone in every state knew their vote really counted, you wouldn't have had twits voting for third party candidates like Stein and Johnson to show what hipsters they were.

Trump did not want to win, clearly. That is why he conspired with Russia to illegally influence the election.

Does the cognitive dissonance hurt or are you used to it already?

/——/ Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha So Hildabeast couldn’t even beat a guy who didn’t want to win. Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha

 

[JoeB131]

/——/ Lame sex jokes are all you have, loser.

Well, the joke was that he appointed a guy with little managerial experience to run the second biggest department in the government, and then found out that the people who worked for him revolted at the thought.