Electoral College

[Toddsterpatriot]

We are a representative republic why would we allow individual votes to elect our president when we use districts for everything else?

We don't "use districts for everything else". We elect Governors, Senators, Congresscritters, State Treasurers, state legislators, mayors, city councilmembers, sheriffs and judges via direct ballot. There's no reason we can't do a POTUS the same way.

We elect Governors, Senators, Congresscritters, State Treasurers, state legislators, mayors, city councilmembers, sheriffs and judges via direct ballot.

48 states choose Electors via direct ballot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Ok first off this thread would not exist had Hillary won.

Secondly, are you advocating for majority rules?

Of course it would.

This topic comes up exactly every four years. Exactly because that's when it's in play.

It was here four years ago, it was here eight years ago, it was here twelve years ago. And in four years it'll be back. And in eight, and in twelve --- unless we fix it.

unless we fix it.

You fix your state, like minded folks can fix their states.

Get crackin!!

 

[Pogo]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

Each state can already do this anytime they want; the individual states determine how their EV's are awarded not the federal government.

It's just not that simple.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it. That's how we got to this nefarious point. No individual state is likely to give up on that if its neighbors are still doing it --- so it's a stalemate. A product of mob mentality. So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

So, if you want this system put in place for your state go start lobbying your state legislature (unless of course you live in Maine, in which case you already have that system).

Actually no you don't. Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions to statewide "winner take all" but in their case they still use WTA on the Congressional District level -- which is virtually just as bad as doing it statewide.

As just laid out, lobbying an individual state legislature is pointless, unless you can also lobby other states to do it at the same time. It's the mob-rule mentality, and it's why this hasn't ever been fixed.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

This is up to each state political party committee to determine, some states already do it this way, some don't.

No state does it this way. Everybody does WTA, 48 on a statewide level and 2 on a disctrict level. Nobody awards proportionate to actual voters' wishes.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it.

Each state has the right to choose the method.
Each state chose. You may believe it is inane.
48 states disagree.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off. That's the only reason they "disagree" --- "because everybody else is doing it".

So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

Yup, we're stuck with it.

That's uh, what I just said.

 

[Pogo]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Ok first off this thread would not exist had Hillary won.

Secondly, are you advocating for majority rules?

Of course it would.

This topic comes up exactly every four years. Exactly because that's when it's in play.

It was here four years ago, it was here eight years ago, it was here twelve years ago. And in four years it'll be back. And in eight, and in twelve --- unless we fix it.

unless we fix it.

You fix your state, like minded folks can fix their states.

Get crackin!!

Unfortunately for those who know how to read ---- I just laid out why that can't be done individually.
Because it didn't get this way individually.

So no. It isn't possible to fix "a" state, singular.

 

[Pogo]

We only elect Senators to the US Federal Government by individual voters and that is because they Represent ALL of the State.

Riiiight.............. and a POTUS represents ALL of the country. What's your point?

Governor is a good analogy. The sheeple that regularly come in bleating "mob rule" in attempting to prop up the inane EC system, seem oblivious to the fact that no such indirect-proxy-unanimous wacko system is used in any state to elect its governor. There is no state in which counties (parishes, boroughs) send X number of electors to vote unanimously (or any other way) for whoever carried that county.

Nor should there be. It would make no sense.

Whelp --- same thing.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, if you want this system put in place for your state go start lobbying your state legislature (unless of course you live in Maine, in which case you already have that system).

Actually no you don't. Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions to statewide "winner take all" but in their case they still use WTA on the Congressional District level -- which is virtually just as bad as doing it statewide.

As just laid out, lobbying an individual state legislature is pointless, unless you can also lobby other states to do it at the same time. It's the mob-rule mentality, and it's why this hasn't ever been fixed.

That is exactly how it is being lobbied for atm. There are a few states that have already passed a law that changes their votes for the winner of the popular vote when there are over 270 EV's under that system. The law kicks in for all of them at the same time and only does so at that time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

Each state can already do this anytime they want; the individual states determine how their EV's are awarded not the federal government.

It's just not that simple.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it. That's how we got to this nefarious point. No individual state is likely to give up on that if its neighbors are still doing it --- so it's a stalemate. A product of mob mentality. So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

So, if you want this system put in place for your state go start lobbying your state legislature (unless of course you live in Maine, in which case you already have that system).

Actually no you don't. Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions to statewide "winner take all" but in their case they still use WTA on the Congressional District level -- which is virtually just as bad as doing it statewide.

As just laid out, lobbying an individual state legislature is pointless, unless you can also lobby other states to do it at the same time. It's the mob-rule mentality, and it's why this hasn't ever been fixed.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

This is up to each state political party committee to determine, some states already do it this way, some don't.

No state does it this way. Everybody does WTA, 48 on a statewide level and 2 on a disctrict level. Nobody awards proportionate to actual voters' wishes.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it.

Each state has the right to choose the method.
Each state chose. You may believe it is inane.
48 states disagree.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off. That's the only reason they "disagree" --- "because everybody else is doing it".

So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

Yup, we're stuck with it.

That's uh, what I just said.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off.

Yup. They freely chose their method. They freely keep it.

That's uh, what I just said.

Yup. So you should keep, uh, whining about it.

 

[Pogo]

So, if you want this system put in place for your state go start lobbying your state legislature (unless of course you live in Maine, in which case you already have that system).

Actually no you don't. Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions to statewide "winner take all" but in their case they still use WTA on the Congressional District level -- which is virtually just as bad as doing it statewide.

As just laid out, lobbying an individual state legislature is pointless, unless you can also lobby other states to do it at the same time. It's the mob-rule mentality, and it's why this hasn't ever been fixed.

That is exactly how it is being lobbied for atm. There are a few states that have already passed a law that changes their votes for the winner of the popular vote when there are over 270 EV's under that system. The law kicks in for all of them at the same time and only does so at that time.

Thanks. I was vaguely aware of that but didn't feel like looking it up. You are correct, I remember Maryland did this recently. That's a clever approach. It may even work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Ok first off this thread would not exist had Hillary won.

Secondly, are you advocating for majority rules?

Of course it would.

This topic comes up exactly every four years. Exactly because that's when it's in play.

It was here four years ago, it was here eight years ago, it was here twelve years ago. And in four years it'll be back. And in eight, and in twelve --- unless we fix it.

unless we fix it.

You fix your state, like minded folks can fix their states.

Get crackin!!

Unfortunately for those who know how to read ---- I just laid out why that can't be done individually.
Because it didn't get this way individually.

So no. It isn't possible to fix "a" state, singular.

I just laid out why that can't be done individually.

And it won't be done collectively.

 

[Pogo]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

Each state can already do this anytime they want; the individual states determine how their EV's are awarded not the federal government.

It's just not that simple.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it. That's how we got to this nefarious point. No individual state is likely to give up on that if its neighbors are still doing it --- so it's a stalemate. A product of mob mentality. So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

So, if you want this system put in place for your state go start lobbying your state legislature (unless of course you live in Maine, in which case you already have that system).

Actually no you don't. Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions to statewide "winner take all" but in their case they still use WTA on the Congressional District level -- which is virtually just as bad as doing it statewide.

As just laid out, lobbying an individual state legislature is pointless, unless you can also lobby other states to do it at the same time. It's the mob-rule mentality, and it's why this hasn't ever been fixed.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

This is up to each state political party committee to determine, some states already do it this way, some don't.

No state does it this way. Everybody does WTA, 48 on a statewide level and 2 on a disctrict level. Nobody awards proportionate to actual voters' wishes.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it.

Each state has the right to choose the method.
Each state chose. You may believe it is inane.
48 states disagree.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off. That's the only reason they "disagree" --- "because everybody else is doing it".

So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

Yup, we're stuck with it.

That's uh, what I just said.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off.

Yup. They freely chose their method. They freely keep it.

That's uh, what I just said.

Yup. So you should keep, uh, whining about it.

No Hunior --- it's not "freely" if they're trapped --- or think they're trapped --- in it. That's what we call a "trap".

 

[Pogo]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Ok first off this thread would not exist had Hillary won.

Secondly, are you advocating for majority rules?

Of course it would.

This topic comes up exactly every four years. Exactly because that's when it's in play.

It was here four years ago, it was here eight years ago, it was here twelve years ago. And in four years it'll be back. And in eight, and in twelve --- unless we fix it.

unless we fix it.

You fix your state, like minded folks can fix their states.

Get crackin!!

Unfortunately for those who know how to read ---- I just laid out why that can't be done individually.
Because it didn't get this way individually.

So no. It isn't possible to fix "a" state, singular.

I just laid out why that can't be done individually.

And it won't be done collectively.

Lemme axe you something here.

Do you ever actually contribute anything to a discussion other than simplistic gainsaying?

Ever?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Each state can already do this anytime they want; the individual states determine how their EV's are awarded not the federal government.

It's just not that simple.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it. That's how we got to this nefarious point. No individual state is likely to give up on that if its neighbors are still doing it --- so it's a stalemate. A product of mob mentality. So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

So, if you want this system put in place for your state go start lobbying your state legislature (unless of course you live in Maine, in which case you already have that system).

Actually no you don't. Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions to statewide "winner take all" but in their case they still use WTA on the Congressional District level -- which is virtually just as bad as doing it statewide.

As just laid out, lobbying an individual state legislature is pointless, unless you can also lobby other states to do it at the same time. It's the mob-rule mentality, and it's why this hasn't ever been fixed.

This is up to each state political party committee to determine, some states already do it this way, some don't.

No state does it this way. Everybody does WTA, 48 on a statewide level and 2 on a disctrict level. Nobody awards proportionate to actual voters' wishes.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it.

Each state has the right to choose the method.
Each state chose. You may believe it is inane.
48 states disagree.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off. That's the only reason they "disagree" --- "because everybody else is doing it".

So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

Yup, we're stuck with it.

That's uh, what I just said.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off.

Yup. They freely chose their method. They freely keep it.

That's uh, what I just said.

Yup. So you should keep, uh, whining about it.

No Hunior --- it's not "freely" if they're trapped --- or think they're trapped --- in it. That's what we call a "trap".

No Hunior --- it's not "freely" if they're trapped

Trapped? LOL!

Each state decided, without being forced by any other state.
If your state wants to change the method, they are free to do so.
If they don't want to change, they're free to keep WTA. Free.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok first off this thread would not exist had Hillary won.

Secondly, are you advocating for majority rules?

Of course it would.

This topic comes up exactly every four years. Exactly because that's when it's in play.

It was here four years ago, it was here eight years ago, it was here twelve years ago. And in four years it'll be back. And in eight, and in twelve --- unless we fix it.

unless we fix it.

You fix your state, like minded folks can fix their states.

Get crackin!!

Unfortunately for those who know how to read ---- I just laid out why that can't be done individually.
Because it didn't get this way individually.

So no. It isn't possible to fix "a" state, singular.

I just laid out why that can't be done individually.

And it won't be done collectively.

Lemme axe you something here.

Do you ever actually contribute anything to a discussion other than simplistic gainsaying?

Ever?

My contribution is pointing out your idiocy.
Maybe you should whine more about the states and their decisions?

 

[Contumacious]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

The Demo_rats, the socialists , fascists and government supremacists want California and New York to elect the president.

Bullshit.

.

 

[Pogo]

It's just not that simple.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it. That's how we got to this nefarious point. No individual state is likely to give up on that if its neighbors are still doing it --- so it's a stalemate. A product of mob mentality. So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.


Actually no you don't. Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions to statewide "winner take all" but in their case they still use WTA on the Congressional District level -- which is virtually just as bad as doing it statewide.

As just laid out, lobbying an individual state legislature is pointless, unless you can also lobby other states to do it at the same time. It's the mob-rule mentality, and it's why this hasn't ever been fixed.


No state does it this way. Everybody does WTA, 48 on a statewide level and 2 on a disctrict level. Nobody awards proportionate to actual voters' wishes.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it.

Each state has the right to choose the method.
Each state chose. You may believe it is inane.
48 states disagree.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off. That's the only reason they "disagree" --- "because everybody else is doing it".

So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

Yup, we're stuck with it.

That's uh, what I just said.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off.

Yup. They freely chose their method. They freely keep it.

That's uh, what I just said.

Yup. So you should keep, uh, whining about it.

No Hunior --- it's not "freely" if they're trapped --- or think they're trapped --- in it. That's what we call a "trap".

No Hunior --- it's not "freely" if they're trapped

Trapped? LOL!

Each state decided, without being forced by any other state.
If your state wants to change the method, they are free to do so.
If they don't want to change, they're free to keep WTA. Free.

Actually each state decided specifically because they were forced by other states.

I've gone over that like six times now. Perhaps you were busy looking in your thesaurus for more ways to say "IS NOT!".

 

[Pogo]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

The Demo_rats, the socialists , fascists and government supremacists want California and New York to elect the president.

Bullshit.

"Bullshit" is right, since there is no planet on which that makes any sense.

Under the current system at least six million voters in those two states voted for Rump, and had their votes flushed down the toilet by the WTA/EC. And had there been an actual reason for them to show up there presumably would have been many more.

 

[Pogo]

Of course it would.

This topic comes up exactly every four years. Exactly because that's when it's in play.

It was here four years ago, it was here eight years ago, it was here twelve years ago. And in four years it'll be back. And in eight, and in twelve --- unless we fix it.

unless we fix it.

You fix your state, like minded folks can fix their states.

Get crackin!!

Unfortunately for those who know how to read ---- I just laid out why that can't be done individually.
Because it didn't get this way individually.

So no. It isn't possible to fix "a" state, singular.

I just laid out why that can't be done individually.

And it won't be done collectively.

Lemme axe you something here.

Do you ever actually contribute anything to a discussion other than simplistic gainsaying?

Ever?

My contribution is pointing out your idiocy.
Maybe you should whine more about the states and their decisions?

So in other words ----- "no".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it.

Each state has the right to choose the method.
Each state chose. You may believe it is inane.
48 states disagree.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off. That's the only reason they "disagree" --- "because everybody else is doing it".

So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

Yup, we're stuck with it.

That's uh, what I just said.

48 states ---- actually 51 ---- are stuck in a mob mentality that no one has the balls to shake off.

Yup. They freely chose their method. They freely keep it.

That's uh, what I just said.

Yup. So you should keep, uh, whining about it.

No Hunior --- it's not "freely" if they're trapped --- or think they're trapped --- in it. That's what we call a "trap".

No Hunior --- it's not "freely" if they're trapped

Trapped? LOL!

Each state decided, without being forced by any other state.
If your state wants to change the method, they are free to do so.
If they don't want to change, they're free to keep WTA. Free.

Actually each state decided specifically because they were forced by other states.

I've gone over that like six times now. Perhaps you were busy looking in your thesaurus for more ways to say "IS NOT!".

Some liberal, especially large states may want to change the system.
Most conservative, especially small states, don't want to change it.

Your complaining won't impact those smaller states.
You should continue whining about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

unless we fix it.

You fix your state, like minded folks can fix their states.

Get crackin!!

Unfortunately for those who know how to read ---- I just laid out why that can't be done individually.
Because it didn't get this way individually.

So no. It isn't possible to fix "a" state, singular.

I just laid out why that can't be done individually.

And it won't be done collectively.

Lemme axe you something here.

Do you ever actually contribute anything to a discussion other than simplistic gainsaying?

Ever?

My contribution is pointing out your idiocy.
Maybe you should whine more about the states and their decisions?

So in other words ----- "no".

So in other words, it's not going to change.

 

[Pogo]

Unfortunately for those who know how to read ---- I just laid out why that can't be done individually.
Because it didn't get this way individually.

So no. It isn't possible to fix "a" state, singular.

I just laid out why that can't be done individually.

And it won't be done collectively.

Lemme axe you something here.

Do you ever actually contribute anything to a discussion other than simplistic gainsaying?

Ever?

My contribution is pointing out your idiocy.
Maybe you should whine more about the states and their decisions?

So in other words ----- "no".

So in other words, it's not going to change.

So in other words you're a troll with nothing to contribute and no ideas, just here to go "IS NOT" like a four yer old. So you're going back to Ignore.