Hillary Clintion Leads by 1.7 Million in Popular Vote. More than both JFK's and Carter's Victories

[Pogo]

You want a war? Deny the voters the President they elected, Trump.

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

Meanwhile Michigan Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all 3 blue States went red. So much for the DON'T VOTE mantra.

Thank you for that opening. It brings us to the next part. "Blue" states, "Red" states and "swing" states are all artificial bullshit terms that are entirely created by the way the Electrical College works, without which said bullshit terms would not exist (nor should they). It's one more way the EC serves to divide the country up into a patchwork of antagonistic regions with the blanket statements that "everybody in California voted for the Democrat", which is both (a) a direct slap in the face to every Californian who didn't, and (b) creates the concept of "California" (in this example) as the "other", the "enemy" (or "friend") that is fundamentally different from, say, Utah. Right here on these same pages you can read multitudes of hate posts inviting California (in this example) to GTFO and secede. So QED.

That's ******* bullshit. It's one more way the EC divides, just as it divided slave states from free states. I don't give a **** how preachy anyone gets about what the "intentions" are or were purportedly supposed to be, that's what it DOES. Dampens voter participation and divides the country into artificial warring camps.

"Red state". "Blue wall". "Battleground state". ******* BULLSHIT.

 

[Rustic]

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

Meanwhile Michigan Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all 3 blue States went red. So much for the DON'T VOTE mantra.

Thank you for that opening. It brings us to the next part. "Blue" states, "Red" states and "swing" states are all artificial bullshit terms that are entirely created by the way the Electrical College works, without which said bullshit terms would not exist (nor should they). It's one more way the EC serves to divide the country up into a patchwork of antagonistic regions with the blanket statements that "everybody in California voted for the Democrat", which is both (a) a direct slap in the face to every Californian who didn't, and (b) creates the concept of "California" (in this example) as the "other", the "enemy" (or "friend") that is fundamentally different from, say, Utah. Right here on these same pages you can read multitudes of hate posts inviting California (in this example) to GTFO and secede. So QED.

That's ******* bullshit. It's one more way the EC divides, just as it divided slave states from free states. I don't give a **** how preachy anyone gets about what the "intentions" are or were purportedly supposed to be, that's what it DOES. Dampens voter participation and divides the country into artificial warring camps.

"Red state". "Blue wall". "Battleground state". ******* BULLSHIT.

You sound like a ***** whipped *****, it's best if you just stick to the rules, the EC determines who's president of the United States - it's not changing anytime soon. Just live with it *****

 

[Pogo]

You want a war? Deny the voters the President they elected, Trump.

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

what you have to do is appeal to the majority of the states. she failed to do that. bottom line courting the illegal vote is not a wise strategy.

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

 

[Spoonman]

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

what you have to do is appeal to the majority of the states. she failed to do that. bottom line courting the illegal vote is not a wise strategy.

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

well yea there is. and it is a key reason Hillary lost.

 

[Pogo]

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

what you have to do is appeal to the majority of the states. she failed to do that. bottom line courting the illegal vote is not a wise strategy.

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

well yea there is. and it is a key reason Hillary lost.

"There is" because you just posted it on the internets, and then read your own post, therefore it's true?

 

[Rustic]

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

what you have to do is appeal to the majority of the states. she failed to do that. bottom line courting the illegal vote is not a wise strategy.

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

well yea there is. and it is a key reason Hillary lost.

"There is" because you just posted it on the internets, and then read your own post, therefore it's true?

 

[ding]

There are still over 3 million votes left to count in California. Therefore, Clinton's victory will be over 2 million votes, possibly over 3 million votes.

This is a sad time for democracy in the United States. We have to deal with the corrupt racist and misogynist bully Trump for at least 4 years because of some nonsense known as the electoral college, which no other democracy in the world is stupid enough to have.

 

[Rustic]

There are still over 3 million votes left to count in California. Therefore, Clinton's victory will be over 2 million votes, possibly over 3 million votes.

This is a sad time for democracy in the United States. We have to deal with the corrupt racist and misogynist bully Trump for at least 4 years because of some nonsense known as the electoral college, which no other democracy in the world is stupid enough to have.

 

[Spoonman]

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

what you have to do is appeal to the majority of the states. she failed to do that. bottom line courting the illegal vote is not a wise strategy.

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

well yea there is. and it is a key reason Hillary lost.

"There is" because you just posted it on the internets, and then read your own post, therefore it's true?

republicans have the white house, control the senate and thanks to harry reid can appoint the cabinet unopposed, control the house. control the majority of governors and state houses. get to shape the supreme court for generations. get to change back the future of America into something positive. have said **** you to political correctness and have instituted a rebellion in the opposite direction. the republicans are galvanized and the democrats are in a shambles. wikileaks has exposed them for the sham they are and America realizes they are not the party of the people. latinos will realize trump and the republicans are not trying to deport every Mexican as the democrats claim and it will cost the democrats the majority of the latino vote in the future. democrats totally miscalculated and the cost will drag them down for years.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

what you have to do is appeal to the majority of the states. she failed to do that. bottom line courting the illegal vote is not a wise strategy.

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

Wrong in Any State that allowed you to enroll to vote by getting a drivers license and no further check was made illegals voted you can count on it. And the estimate is that 3 million at least voted. Let me know when she has 3 million more than Trump and then she still loses. Further until California came in Trump was up a million.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares about this except those with the bumpy planted firmly in the pooper.........

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber_1.jpg.html][/URL]

Not that I'm complaining......these threads are a hoot to follow for those who are not losing!

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

Actually, thank slavery.

Had nothing to do with it as you very well know but yet still you propagate this bullshit lie.

Pogo is correct.

No, he isn't. Here are the PERIOD essays that describe the reasoning behind the EC. Not the revisionist horse poo you've been spoon fed. If you dare read them you will be far better educated than pogo and whoever it was that propagandised you. But, these were written by SMART, EDUCATED, men. Enter at your own risk.

The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -

The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 15

Tell us again slavery "had nothing to do with it."

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
The Founding Fathers had something particular in mind when they set up the U.S. presidential election system: slavery

<snip> "Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states. But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.
....
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”
In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves."

For starters...

Exactly. And as a result of that intentionally biased structure --- four of our first five POTUSes (nine of the first ten administrations) were slaveholders from the South. Specifically from........ Virginia -- the state with the largest electoral punch, and ensured that punch by the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise, from which it derived those extra EVs while taking none of the responsibility for them. That's simple historical fact.

Yes, Adams really got screwed in the 1800 election. Adams was the only northerner to break the Virginia slaveholder stranglehold on this country's early history, which is a testament to how exceptionally talented and bright Adams was. Adams is easily the most interesting of the Founding Fathers. David McCullough's John Adams is a great read.

On a side note, the more I've read about Thomas Jefferson, the less I like him. He preached frugality to his children, yet spent money like a Beverly Hills housewife his entire life, which is why he was essentially broke when he died. And one reason Jefferson didn't want a strong central government is that he wanted to pay fewer taxes so that he could spend more money on clothes and paintings.

And even when Jefferson died, he did not free his slaves, despite talking about the evils of slavery many times. Jefferson was full of shit in a lot of ways.

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

You want a war? Deny the voters the President they elected, Trump.

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

Meanwhile Michigan Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all 3 blue States went red. So much for the DON'T VOTE mantra.

If you're naïve enough to believe all 3 states really went red after choosing Democrats for President for the past 20+ years, then you're a fool. Voter suppression played a huge role in Wisconsin at the very least. I won't be at all surprised if Clinton really did win all 3 states because the exit polls state that Clinton won all 3 states. I think some very fishy shit is going to be discovered during Jill Stein's recounts.

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

Meanwhile Michigan Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all 3 blue States went red. So much for the DON'T VOTE mantra.

Thank you for that opening. It brings us to the next part. "Blue" states, "Red" states and "swing" states are all artificial bullshit terms that are entirely created by the way the Electrical College works, without which said bullshit terms would not exist (nor should they). It's one more way the EC serves to divide the country up into a patchwork of antagonistic regions with the blanket statements that "everybody in California voted for the Democrat", which is both (a) a direct slap in the face to every Californian who didn't, and (b) creates the concept of "California" (in this example) as the "other", the "enemy" (or "friend") that is fundamentally different from, say, Utah. Right here on these same pages you can read multitudes of hate posts inviting California (in this example) to GTFO and secede. So QED.

That's ******* bullshit. It's one more way the EC divides, just as it divided slave states from free states. I don't give a **** how preachy anyone gets about what the "intentions" are or were purportedly supposed to be, that's what it DOES. Dampens voter participation and divides the country into artificial warring camps.

"Red state". "Blue wall". "Battleground state". ******* BULLSHIT.

And the saddest part is that this is not what the Founding Fathers intended. The Founding Fathers expected electoral college voters to vote their conscience based on the will of the people. In this case, that would be Clinton since she has a lead of over 2 million votes. The main reason for the electoral college was to protect from mob rule in a young, untested democracy. In this election, the "mob" is the Repug minority of voters who chose Trump.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states electoral college voters must vote for the candidate that wins the most states or wins the most electorally important states.

 

[Flopper]

If the electoral college voters have a conscience, they will do the right thing and give the election to Clinton. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents the EC voters from choosing the legitimate winner, which is Clinton. In fact, the framers of the Constitution never intended for the winners of the most states or electorally strategic states to be President. The framers of the Constitution intended for the electoral college voters to vote based on the will of the majority of Americans, which is Hillary Clinton. This article from a Harvard law school professor says it all:

The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.

You want a war? Deny the voters the President they elected, Trump.

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If we can't agree on a national popular vote, what seems reasonable to me would be requiring states to distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state as Mane and Nebraska do. In that way, the electoral college is maintained, giving smaller states an edge in the electoral college but it makes voting within each state more democratic always giving the minority a chance to win electoral votes. More importantly, it will destroy the red state blue state mentality which has been so destructive to national unity. Each party would have to win the votes from each state. No state would be "in bag".

 

[Pogo]

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

what you have to do is appeal to the majority of the states. she failed to do that. bottom line courting the illegal vote is not a wise strategy.

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

well yea there is. and it is a key reason Hillary lost.

"There is" because you just posted it on the internets, and then read your own post, therefore it's true?

republicans have the white house, control the senate and thanks to harry reid can appoint the cabinet unopposed, control the house. control the majority of governors and state houses. get to shape the supreme court for generations. get to change back the future of America into something positive. have said **** you to political correctness and have instituted a rebellion in the opposite direction. the republicans are galvanized and the democrats are in a shambles. wikileaks has exposed them for the sham they are and America realizes they are not the party of the people. latinos will realize trump and the republicans are not trying to deport every Mexican as the democrats claim and it will cost the democrats the majority of the latino vote in the future. democrats totally miscalculated and the cost will drag them down for years.

Whatever.
Doesn't have anything to do with the previous point, does it?

 

[Pogo]

You want a war? Deny the voters the President they elected, Trump.

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If we can't agree on a national popular vote, what seems reasonable to me would be requiring states to distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state as Mane and Nebraska do. In that way, the electoral college is maintained, giving smaller states an edge in the electoral college but it makes voting within each state more democratic always giving the minority a chance to win electoral votes. More importantly, it will destroy the red state blue state mentality which has been so destructive to national unity. Each party would have to win the votes from each state. No state would be "in bag".

That's been suggested. The issue with it is that Maine and Nebraska don't apportion their EVs according to the state's popular vote; they apportion them by Congressional district. And those are already, in many states including this one, artificial monstrosities far more divisively honed due to gerrymandering. So we'd get in many cases even more extremity of division, with intentionally-designed "deep red" districts and "deep blue" ones. That seems an enormous can of worms that would be easilly manipulated by whichever party has enough power in a given state to design those districts. They already manipulate them for advantage; this would invite them to make it even worse.

 

[Pogo]

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

what you have to do is appeal to the majority of the states. she failed to do that. bottom line courting the illegal vote is not a wise strategy.

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

Wrong in Any State that allowed you to enroll to vote by getting a drivers license and no further check was made illegals voted you can count on it. And the estimate is that 3 million at least voted. Let me know when she has 3 million more than Trump and then she still loses. Further until California came in Trump was up a million.

Excellent. The "everybody knows" fallacy's first cousin, the "you can count on it" fallacy. Just because you say so. And you can believe it, because----- wait for it ---------------- 'it's estimated".

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If we can't agree on a national popular vote, what seems reasonable to me would be requiring states to distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state as Mane and Nebraska do. In that way, the electoral college is maintained, giving smaller states an edge in the electoral college but it makes voting within each state more democratic always giving the minority a chance to win electoral votes. More importantly, it will destroy the red state blue state mentality which has been so destructive to national unity. Each party would have to win the votes from each state. No state would be "in bag".

That's been suggested. The issue with it is that Maine and Nebraska don't apportion their EVs according to the state's popular vote; they apportion them by Congressional district. And those are already, in many states including this one, artificial monstrosities far more divisively honed due to gerrymandering. So we'd get in many cases even more extremity of division, with intentionally-designed "deep red" districts and "deep blue" ones. That seems an enormous can of worms that would be easilly manipulated by whichever party has enough power in a given state to design those districts. They already manipulate them for advantage; this would invite them to make it even worse.

Republican gerrymandering will be the death knell of the Democratic Party, and the Democrats should have done a lot more to combat this problem a long time ago. Democrats will have to gain control of the states with the most ridiculous gerrymandered districts, such as North Carolina and Pennsylvania, and bring some sanity back to the district boundaries. Otherwise, the Repugs will permanently control the House of Representatives.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If we can't agree on a national popular vote, what seems reasonable to me would be requiring states to distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state as Mane and Nebraska do. In that way, the electoral college is maintained, giving smaller states an edge in the electoral college but it makes voting within each state more democratic always giving the minority a chance to win electoral votes. More importantly, it will destroy the red state blue state mentality which has been so destructive to national unity. Each party would have to win the votes from each state. No state would be "in bag".

That's been suggested. The issue with it is that Maine and Nebraska don't apportion their EVs according to the state's popular vote; they apportion them by Congressional district. And those are already, in many states including this one, artificial monstrosities far more divisively honed due to gerrymandering. So we'd get in many cases even more extremity of division, with intentionally-designed "deep red" districts and "deep blue" ones. That seems an enormous can of worms that would be easilly manipulated by whichever party has enough power in a given state to design those districts. They already manipulate them for advantage; this would invite them to make it even worse.

Republican gerrymandering will be the death knell of the Democratic Party, and the Democrats should have done a lot more to combat this problem a long time ago. Democrats will have to gain control of the states with the most ridiculous gerrymandered districts, such as North Carolina and Pennsylvania, and bring some sanity back to the district boundaries. Otherwise, the Repugs will permanently control the House of Representatives.

Hey dumb ass? The worst gerrymandering is done by order of the US Government thanks to liberals. To create "black" districts". Ohh and last I checked democrats when in power work to gerrymander to their benefit.