Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

[Care4all]

Cool, awesome. Just remember we don't play dirty like a cheap liberal. We actually get shit done. Righteousness is on our side too. Come and get it, see what happens.

you have to be kidding or you are partisan blind!

here's just 1 of the latest...

Trump, GOP paying consultant dogged by voter fraud charges

 

[emilynghiem]

yes, they can do it, and they are SUPPOSE to do it....that's what the constitution says and that's how hamilton and madison created electors to be.... make their own decision on who to vote for..... not even coordinating with other electors in their State, but an informed, individual, decision....not by party, not by popular vote but they alone were to make their own individual decision.

Then politics got involved, and electors figured out they could have more power if they colluded together on who to pick as their candidate...and it's been all downhill since then...

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....every elected position in the USA is picked that way....governors, senators, congressmen, legislators, county clerk, sheriff, school board members etc....

except our President.... it's bull crud.

IF TRUMP had won the popular vote but Hillary won the electoral vote, Trump would be tweeting from the rafters, the election was rigged, the system is rigged....

when wisonsin gets 3 electors for 500k citizens, and california with 39 million citizens gets 55, then the citizens in their state's vote does not count equally with a citizen in Wisconsin....that's simply not right, not fair, not just. one man, one vote against another man's vote, should be equal

if calif had the same proportion of electors as wisconsin citizens get, california would have 195 electors, not the 55....

it's stupid and highly unfair.

Dear Care4all
We could change it where the winner has to get majority of BOTH electoral and popular votes.
Then we could face a runoff in December by ALL people not just Electors.
Wouldn't that be a media circus?
Would the media back this so they can make even more money off more hype that never ends?

Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.

why would we do that? why not just let the citizen's vote count?

Dear Care4all Because the candidates would only flock to high population areas
and invest all their money there to get in good with where the 51% is most easily won.

So the votes of citizens in RI would not count equally as the ones in CA and NY.
You'd have an even WORSE problem than what you pointed out as not being equal!

AGAIN, why don't we make it where candidates have to win BOTH?
When a bill passes through Congress, it has to go through BOTH the House of Reps and the Senate.
Why can't the President require both the majority of popular vote and the majority of Electoral.

Wouldn't that satisfy both concerns?

 

[Care4all]

the electoral college was not created by our founders to give smaller unpopulated states more power!!!!!! THAT'S simply not true!

all the states had about the same populations and electors when they were created.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Thank goodness that once all the votes were counted, Trump won the popular vote too.

If you look at a detailed map of election results, it has to be clear that the nation isn't going to let a few blueberries make the decisions.

 

[Zoom-boing]

 

[emilynghiem]

the electoral college was not created by our founders to give smaller unpopulated states more power!!!!!! THAT'S simply not true!

all the states had about the same populations and electors when they were created.

Dear Care4all They had more foresight than just to think America was going to stay small.
The purpose was for more populated cities not to outvote citizens in smaller cities.
Now it's grown much larger than that.

I like the idea of proportional representation dividing Electoral Votes by district.
That is very similar to the same concept of not letting higher populated areas of the same state
decide the vote for the entire population of that state.

If you are going to use the Electoral argument for the national level, among states of different size,
why not apply the same concept to state level, among districts of different size?

 

[Zoom-boing]

the electoral college was not created by our founders to give smaller unpopulated states more power!!!!!! THAT'S simply not true!

all the states had about the same populations and electors when they were created.

Not more power, a voice.

The Founders were wise men. They knew the country would flourish and the populations would grow.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank goodness that once all the votes were counted, Trump won the popular vote too.

If you look at a detailed map of election results, it has to be clear that the nation isn't going to let a few blueberries make the decisions.

Plot Twist: CNN Now Saying That Donald Trump Will Win The Popular Vote
??? was that a media miscall???
Plot Twist On A Plot Twist: Trump Not Winning Popular Vote, Clinton Still In The Lead

 

[Care4all]

yes, they can do it, and they are SUPPOSE to do it....that's what the constitution says and that's how hamilton and madison created electors to be.... make their own decision on who to vote for..... not even coordinating with other electors in their State, but an informed, individual, decision....not by party, not by popular vote but they alone were to make their own individual decision.

Then politics got involved, and electors figured out they could have more power if they colluded together on who to pick as their candidate...and it's been all downhill since then...

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....every elected position in the USA is picked that way....governors, senators, congressmen, legislators, county clerk, sheriff, school board members etc....

except our President.... it's bull crud.

IF TRUMP had won the popular vote but Hillary won the electoral vote, Trump would be tweeting from the rafters, the election was rigged, the system is rigged....

when wisonsin gets 3 electors for 500k citizens, and california with 39 million citizens gets 55, then the citizens in their state's vote does not count equally with a citizen in Wisconsin....that's simply not right, not fair, not just. one man, one vote against another man's vote, should be equal

if calif had the same proportion of electors as wisconsin citizens get, california would have 195 electors, not the 55....

it's stupid and highly unfair.

Dear Care4all
We could change it where the winner has to get majority of BOTH electoral and popular votes.
Then we could face a runoff in December by ALL people not just Electors.
Wouldn't that be a media circus?
Would the media back this so they can make even more money off more hype that never ends?

Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.

why would we do that? why not just let the citizen's vote count?

Dear Care4all Because the candidates would only flock to high population areas
and invest all their money there to get in good with where the 51% is most easily won.

So the votes of citizens in RI would not count equally as the ones in CA and NY.
You'd have an even WORSE problem than what you pointed out as not being equal!

AGAIN, why don't we make it where candidates have to win BOTH?
When a bill passes through Congress, it has to go through BOTH the House of Reps and the Senate.
Why can't the President require both the majority of popular vote and the majority of Electoral.

Wouldn't that satisfy both concerns?

in the past, when we did not have the internet and at minimum 3 full time 24/7 cable news networks, and twitter and facebook etc etc, I would agree that even though we added a popular vote for the presidency, which we never had in the beginning, the electors served a purpose to pull candidates with their message, to their states so they could hear it....

but not anymore....

and presidential candidates are not in horse and carriage anymore either, with limited means to campaign....we've got Trump force 1's that can fly anywhere in the country on a moment's notice....

everyone can be informed, even in smaller states now...

BUT, if I had to compromise, I think your solution would be a good one!

 

[emilynghiem]

She had 59,755,284 votes, according to CNN's tally, with 92% of the expected vote counted. Trump had 59,535,522. That difference of 219,762 is razor-thin considering the nearly 120 million votes counted so far. The totals will continue to change as absentee votes trickle in.
It's a fascinating turn of events for Trump, who four years ago tweeted, "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy," following Mitt Romney's loss in 2012.


How Gary Johnson and Jill Stein helped elect Donald Trump
If Clinton hangs on, she would become the first presidential candidate since Al Gore in 2000 to win the popular vote but lose the election. Trump, who clinched the nomination by securing 270 Electoral College votes, currently leads Clinton 290-228, though Michigan and New Hampshire have yet to be called.
Prior to Gore's defeat to George W. Bush in 2000, three other candidates -- Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden and Grover Cleveland, all in the 19th century -- had won the popular vote and lost the election.
=========================

If Clinton won by 219,762 votes.
Zoom-boing is there a more clear map of where those came from,
or was the one I stole from another site clear enough?

Your map shows where "half" the population lives.
What about the "half" that voted for Clinton?
Is there a better map somewhere than the one I found?

 

[eflatminor]

"On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine - which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!

We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton."

Electoral College Electors: Electoral College Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

More hypocrisy.

Can you imagine the shitstorm that would ensue were the reverse true?

My goodness, hypocrisy indeed.

 

[Care4all]

the electoral college was not created by our founders to give smaller unpopulated states more power!!!!!! THAT'S simply not true!

all the states had about the same populations and electors when they were created.

Not more power, a voice.

The Founders were wise men. They knew the country would flourish and the populations would grow.

there was no popular vote at the time of our founding fathers..... hamilton and madison were turning in their graves before they even died, watching what states ended up doing with their electors....the corruption and collusion among electors started while they were still alive and they were not pleased!!!

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm so sick of liberals being completely intolerant when they don't get their way. Just learn to deal with life like an adult. We put up with Obama and his liberal policies for 8 years. No one went to the streets and rioted or attacked people. No one cried about changing the rules. College kids didn't piss and moan and get out of taking tests.

Disagree all you want with how he does things, but stop with the petty bullshit. Right now, the whiney ass babies are throwing public tantrums because they didn't get their way. They claim to be the party of peace and tolerance but they are anything but that when they can't control things. Grow the fuck up. All those idiots burning cars and beating people up should be in jail. It's disgusting and I refuse to give any of them sympathy when they act like total douchebags.

I'm so sick of liberals being completely intolerant when they don't get their way.

it is shit like that which got trump elected

everyone is sick of these frikkin crybabies

 

[JBond]

yes, they can do it, and they are SUPPOSE to do it....that's what the constitution says and that's how hamilton and madison created electors to be.... make their own decision on who to vote for..... not even coordinating with other electors in their State, but an informed, individual, decision....not by party, not by popular vote but they alone were to make their own individual decision.

Then politics got involved, and electors figured out they could have more power if they colluded together on who to pick as their candidate...and it's been all downhill since then...

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....every elected position in the USA is picked that way....governors, senators, congressmen, legislators, county clerk, sheriff, school board members etc....

except our President.... it's bull crud.

IF TRUMP had won the popular vote but Hillary won the electoral vote, Trump would be tweeting from the rafters, the election was rigged, the system is rigged....

when wisonsin gets 3 electors for 500k citizens, and california with 39 million citizens gets 55, then the citizens in their state's vote does not count equally with a citizen in Wisconsin....that's simply not right, not fair, not just. one man, one vote against another man's vote, should be equal

if calif had the same proportion of electors as wisconsin citizens get, california would have 195 electors, not the 55....

it's stupid and highly unfair.

Dear Care4all
We could change it where the winner has to get majority of BOTH electoral and popular votes.
Then we could face a runoff in December by ALL people not just Electors.
Wouldn't that be a media circus?
Would the media back this so they can make even more money off more hype that never ends?

Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.

No Missouri_Mike
Where do you get that I am not RELIEVED that Trump won because of the Electoral System this time?

If a candidate has to win BOTH votes that INCLUDES the Electoral College, it doesn't reject it at ALL!!!

Are you trying to clarify that if there is a runoff, we should use the same system again?
And have ALL the people vote for just those two candidates,
and then use the Electoral system again for the runoff?

Okay, SURE! Whatever it takes to ensure the Winner wins
BOTH the Popular and Electoral Vote so we don't have this nonsense afterward.

Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.

 

[emilynghiem]

the electoral college was not created by our founders to give smaller unpopulated states more power!!!!!! THAT'S simply not true!

all the states had about the same populations and electors when they were created.

Not more power, a voice.

The Founders were wise men. They knew the country would flourish and the populations would grow.

there was no popular vote at the time of our founding fathers..... hamilton and madison were turning in their graves before they even died, watching what states ended up doing with their electors....the corruption and collusion among electors started while they were still alive and they were not pleased!!!

Dear Care4all: It used to be only property owners were authorized to vote.
This business of buying votes by offering govt benefits to voters of lower income levels,
while other voters of higher management levels work for their own support,
has made the rift even worse between the two philosophies of
govt either *reflecting* the consent and agreement among the people (who maximize their liberties while limiting govt) or govt regulating FOR people (who give more authority to govt and take responsibility off the people).

 

[emilynghiem]

yes, they can do it, and they are SUPPOSE to do it....that's what the constitution says and that's how hamilton and madison created electors to be.... make their own decision on who to vote for..... not even coordinating with other electors in their State, but an informed, individual, decision....not by party, not by popular vote but they alone were to make their own individual decision.

Then politics got involved, and electors figured out they could have more power if they colluded together on who to pick as their candidate...and it's been all downhill since then...

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....every elected position in the USA is picked that way....governors, senators, congressmen, legislators, county clerk, sheriff, school board members etc....

except our President.... it's bull crud.

IF TRUMP had won the popular vote but Hillary won the electoral vote, Trump would be tweeting from the rafters, the election was rigged, the system is rigged....

when wisonsin gets 3 electors for 500k citizens, and california with 39 million citizens gets 55, then the citizens in their state's vote does not count equally with a citizen in Wisconsin....that's simply not right, not fair, not just. one man, one vote against another man's vote, should be equal

if calif had the same proportion of electors as wisconsin citizens get, california would have 195 electors, not the 55....

it's stupid and highly unfair.

Dear Care4all
We could change it where the winner has to get majority of BOTH electoral and popular votes.
Then we could face a runoff in December by ALL people not just Electors.
Wouldn't that be a media circus?
Would the media back this so they can make even more money off more hype that never ends?

Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.

No Missouri_Mike
Where do you get that I am not RELIEVED that Trump won because of the Electoral System this time?

If a candidate has to win BOTH votes that INCLUDES the Electoral College, it doesn't reject it at ALL!!!

Are you trying to clarify that if there is a runoff, we should use the same system again?
And have ALL the people vote for just those two candidates,
and then use the Electoral system again for the runoff?

Okay, SURE! Whatever it takes to ensure the Winner wins
BOTH the Popular and Electoral Vote so we don't have this nonsense afterward.

Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.

Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!

 

[Care4all]

the electoral college was not created by our founders to give smaller unpopulated states more power!!!!!! THAT'S simply not true!

all the states had about the same populations and electors when they were created.

Not more power, a voice.

The Founders were wise men. They knew the country would flourish and the populations would grow.

there was no popular vote at the time of our founding fathers..... hamilton and madison were turning in their graves before they even died, watching what states ended up doing with their electors....the corruption and collusion among electors started while they were still alive and they were not pleased!!!

Dear Care4all: It used to be only property owners were authorized to vote.
This business of buying votes by offering govt benefits to voters of lower income levels,
while other voters of higher management levels work for their own support,
has made the rift even worse between the two philosophies of
govt either *reflecting* the consent and agreement among the people (who maximize their liberties while limiting govt) or govt regulating FOR people (who give more authority to govt and take responsibility off the people).

from what i've read on it, those limited voters did NOT vote for President though, they voted for the electors.

 

[JBond]

yes, they can do it, and they are SUPPOSE to do it....that's what the constitution says and that's how hamilton and madison created electors to be.... make their own decision on who to vote for..... not even coordinating with other electors in their State, but an informed, individual, decision....not by party, not by popular vote but they alone were to make their own individual decision.

Then politics got involved, and electors figured out they could have more power if they colluded together on who to pick as their candidate...and it's been all downhill since then...

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....every elected position in the USA is picked that way....governors, senators, congressmen, legislators, county clerk, sheriff, school board members etc....

except our President.... it's bull crud.

IF TRUMP had won the popular vote but Hillary won the electoral vote, Trump would be tweeting from the rafters, the election was rigged, the system is rigged....

when wisonsin gets 3 electors for 500k citizens, and california with 39 million citizens gets 55, then the citizens in their state's vote does not count equally with a citizen in Wisconsin....that's simply not right, not fair, not just. one man, one vote against another man's vote, should be equal

if calif had the same proportion of electors as wisconsin citizens get, california would have 195 electors, not the 55....

it's stupid and highly unfair.

Dear Care4all
We could change it where the winner has to get majority of BOTH electoral and popular votes.
Then we could face a runoff in December by ALL people not just Electors.
Wouldn't that be a media circus?
Would the media back this so they can make even more money off more hype that never ends?

Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.

No Missouri_Mike
Where do you get that I am not RELIEVED that Trump won because of the Electoral System this time?

If a candidate has to win BOTH votes that INCLUDES the Electoral College, it doesn't reject it at ALL!!!

Are you trying to clarify that if there is a runoff, we should use the same system again?
And have ALL the people vote for just those two candidates,
and then use the Electoral system again for the runoff?

Okay, SURE! Whatever it takes to ensure the Winner wins
BOTH the Popular and Electoral Vote so we don't have this nonsense afterward.

Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.

Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!

Are you in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment?

 

[Care4all]

yes, they can do it, and they are SUPPOSE to do it....that's what the constitution says and that's how hamilton and madison created electors to be.... make their own decision on who to vote for..... not even coordinating with other electors in their State, but an informed, individual, decision....not by party, not by popular vote but they alone were to make their own individual decision.

Then politics got involved, and electors figured out they could have more power if they colluded together on who to pick as their candidate...and it's been all downhill since then...

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....every elected position in the USA is picked that way....governors, senators, congressmen, legislators, county clerk, sheriff, school board members etc....

except our President.... it's bull crud.

IF TRUMP had won the popular vote but Hillary won the electoral vote, Trump would be tweeting from the rafters, the election was rigged, the system is rigged....

when wisonsin gets 3 electors for 500k citizens, and california with 39 million citizens gets 55, then the citizens in their state's vote does not count equally with a citizen in Wisconsin....that's simply not right, not fair, not just. one man, one vote against another man's vote, should be equal

if calif had the same proportion of electors as wisconsin citizens get, california would have 195 electors, not the 55....

it's stupid and highly unfair.

Dear Care4all
We could change it where the winner has to get majority of BOTH electoral and popular votes.
Then we could face a runoff in December by ALL people not just Electors.
Wouldn't that be a media circus?
Would the media back this so they can make even more money off more hype that never ends?

Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.

No Missouri_Mike
Where do you get that I am not RELIEVED that Trump won because of the Electoral System this time?

If a candidate has to win BOTH votes that INCLUDES the Electoral College, it doesn't reject it at ALL!!!

Are you trying to clarify that if there is a runoff, we should use the same system again?
And have ALL the people vote for just those two candidates,
and then use the Electoral system again for the runoff?

Okay, SURE! Whatever it takes to ensure the Winner wins
BOTH the Popular and Electoral Vote so we don't have this nonsense afterward.

Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.

Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!

but why is it fair to limit the worth of 1 man's vote who just happens to live in a city, and magnify 1 man's vote who lives in the suburbs or country? it makes no sense?

 

[JBond]

Dear Care4all
We could change it where the winner has to get majority of BOTH electoral and popular votes.
Then we could face a runoff in December by ALL people not just Electors.
Wouldn't that be a media circus?
Would the media back this so they can make even more money off more hype that never ends?

Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.

No Missouri_Mike
Where do you get that I am not RELIEVED that Trump won because of the Electoral System this time?

If a candidate has to win BOTH votes that INCLUDES the Electoral College, it doesn't reject it at ALL!!!

Are you trying to clarify that if there is a runoff, we should use the same system again?
And have ALL the people vote for just those two candidates,
and then use the Electoral system again for the runoff?

Okay, SURE! Whatever it takes to ensure the Winner wins
BOTH the Popular and Electoral Vote so we don't have this nonsense afterward.

Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.

Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!

but why is it fair to limit the worth of 1 man's vote who just happens to live in a city, and magnify 1 man's vote who lives in the suburbs or country? it makes no sense?

Tyranny of the majority...