Point being that if EW had her way there would be no need for any POTUS candidate to ever bother campaigning in MS because the socialist one-party status of California would prevail across the nation. Mississippians should be horrified by her.
You ever even BEEN TO Mississippi? I doubt it. In any case is it not one of the United States? As such is it not affected by how this country elects its chief executive?
If there were no EC everybody's vote would start counting, whereas the current system systematically tosses millions of votes directly into the shitcan. For most states, certainly including Mississippi, there's no reason to even get out of bed on election day; the outcome is predetermined like a Saddam Hussein 99% tally. So what's the point? Removing the EC would at least give them a chance, so no I don't think they'd be "horrified" by that at all. That's just absurd.
Why the **** do you think we have a national turnout rate dozens of points BELOW other "first-world" countries? Think about it.
.In the real world nobody campaigns in Mississippi. The red guy knows he has a gimme and the blue guy knows he has no shot. But that's entirely the fault of the WTA system, which also means any voter who wants the blue guy has no vote. The only POTUS candy I can think of who went to Mississippi as an actual nominee was Reagan, and that was only because he was there to address the South as a region to appeal to the racists. Third partiers like Thurmond and Wallace did, but their strategy was entirely regional. And it's also worth noting that that strategy was to siphon off enough votes from the South so as to deny an electoral majority to any candidate, thus tossing the whole election into the House of Reps where anything can happen ---- in other words to undermine the entire election itself --- yet another argument against the system as it is.
No I'm saying it because to eliminate the electoral college would result in a war.
You're using the 3/5 compromise and the electoral college interchangeably. The two have nothing to do with each other. However, douchebags find it useful to treat them as if they are the same thing.
You just PROVED MY POINT, Dumbass.
I accept your concession. What I won't do is cut it out of the quote like a goddam wimp.
Fortunately, it only takes 13 of those states to vote no.
I'm not sure that candidates showing up in a state to eat their hoagies or drink their coffee at diners is crucial anymore. Maybe in 1880 candidates needed to ride the rails to get their message out to the folks who didn't read newspapers much, but with social media, television and radio, plus excellent newspapers, there is not really a great need for candidates to show up. I don't know if Clinton really lost those states because she was taking a vacation in August--I think there was actually a lot more to it than that.
Point being that if EW had her way there would be no need for any POTUS candidate to ever bother campaigning in MS because the socialist one-party status of California would prevail across the nation. Mississippians should be horrified by her.
You ever even BEEN TO Mississippi? I doubt it. In any case is it not one of the United States? As such is it not affected by how this country elects its chief executive?
If there were no EC everybody's vote would start counting, whereas the current system systematically tosses millions of votes directly into the shitcan. For most states, certainly including Mississippi, there's no reason to even get out of bed on election day; the outcome is predetermined like a Saddam Hussein 99% tally. So what's the point? Removing the EC would at least give them a chance, so no I don't think they'd be "horrified" by that at all. That's just absurd.
Why the **** do you think we have a national turnout rate dozens of points BELOW other "first-world" countries? Think about it.
.In the real world nobody campaigns in Mississippi. The red guy knows he has a gimme and the blue guy knows he has no shot. But that's entirely the fault of the WTA system, which also means any voter who wants the blue guy has no vote. The only POTUS candy I can think of who went to Mississippi as an actual nominee was Reagan, and that was only because he was there to address the South as a region to appeal to the racists. Third partiers like Thurmond and Wallace did, but their strategy was entirely regional. And it's also worth noting that that strategy was to siphon off enough votes from the South so as to deny an electoral majority to any candidate, thus tossing the whole election into the House of Reps where anything can happen ---- in other words to undermine the entire election itself --- yet another argument against the system as it is.
In your example no one would still campaign in Mississippi. In fact, candidates wouldn't campaign in New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio and the list goes on. New York and LA would decide everything for the entire country.
Because they're trying to whip up the immigrant/crimina./student democratic base to a point where they just start mobbing. They are trying to create a wave of violent revolutionaries who will physically overthrow the government.
Er..not for no reason.
