How much is your vote worth?

[frigidweirdo]

In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.

In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.

Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.

Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.

A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.

Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.

How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.

 

[koshergrl]

Poor anti-American cry babies now demanding that we shred the constitution because they can't possibly win if they have to abide by it.

Get over it. Your communist ideology was rejected. And we're going to keep rejecting it. The wall is getting built. The border patrol is already taking back the border, and illegals are already running to get the hell back to their shitholes.

And glory hallelujah we are dismantling Obamacare, stopping all funding for various and assorted global warming and environmentalist scams, and eliminating the Dept. of Communist Education, and turning education back over to our communities...like it used to be when kids who left school in the 6th grade were better educated than kids in their second year of college today.

 

[Onyx]

 

[Onyx]

Your vote is worth nothing.

 

[Jackson]

In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.

In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.

Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.

Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.

A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.

Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.

How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.

I would guess no one campaigned in Illinois or California...in essence, Hillary has a positive count before the election even started.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.

In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.

Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.

Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.

A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.

Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.

How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.

Why not try for a constitutional amendment?

Really. Why don't you?

 

[Missourian]

 

[HenryBHough]

The office is called "President of The United STATES". Not "President of the people of....".

OK, so by definition the states choose the president and the vehicle is The Electoral College System.

Which worked OK when states were just beginning to be populated.

But now that's all changed and population change is minimal.

So the system should be changed.

Keeping the "President of The United STATES" concept that's in the constitution the simple approach would be to make the distribution of electoral votes fair and equitable. One EV per state. The one (1, libs) per state would be required to go to the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. Won by a simple majority. So if there were three candidates and each of two got 33% of the vote (66%) but the other one got 34% then there's the winner!

Get it done and the interests of states like Hawaii and Alaska would be on a level court with California and Illinois.

Yeah. That Would be fair!

 

[frigidweirdo]

In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.

In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.

Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.

Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.

A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.

Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.

How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.

I would guess no one campaigned in Illinois or California...in essence, Hillary has a positive count before the election even started.

Well Trump probably didn't need to campaign in many other places either.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.

In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.

Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.

Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.

A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.

Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.

How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.

Why not try for a constitutional amendment?

Really. Why don't you?

Because one person can't do it on their own. You need to get support of enough people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your vote is worth nothing.

Well there's that too, that's because of the system too, another reason to change things.

 

[Auld Phart]

In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.

In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.

Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.

Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.

A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.

Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.

How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.

Mine was worth 47 cents.

That's what it cost me to dive to the polls, then back home

 

[Onyx]

Well there's that too, that's because of the system too, another reason to change things.

I have told you in the past that your changes are uneducated and fraudulent.

You do not understand sociology, which is why you cannot comprehend why your beliefs do not function. You ignore the roots of the problem.

 

[TheDude]

You could break it down to districts. Cooked Clinton would have lost that too.

 

[Auld Phart]

Your vote is worth nothing.

Well there's that too, that's because of the system too, another reason to change things.

a trek of a thousand miles starts with one step

 

[ding]

Hillary wins the popular vote – not
By Steve Feinstein

Okay, let’s address this “Hillary might win the popular vote, isn’t that Electoral College situation just awful” thing head on.

No, it’s not awful. It’s great, and it protects the importance of your vote. It’s also uniquely American and demonstrates yet again the once-in-creation brilliance of the Founding Fathers.

First of all, she’s probably not going to win the actual number of votes cast. She may win the number of votes counted, but not the votes cast.

States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the number of outstanding absentee ballots is larger than the state margin of difference. If there is a margin of 1,000 votes counted and there are 1,300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state tabulates those. If the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t influence the election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted.

Who votes by absentee ballot? Students overseas, the military, businesspeople on trips, etc. The historical breakout for absentee ballots is about 67-33% Republican. In 2000, when Al Gore “won” the popular vote nationally by 500,000 votes and the liberal media screamed bloody murder, there were 2 million absentee ballots in California alone. A 67-33 breakout of those yields a 1.33- to 0.667-million Republican vote advantage, so Bush would have gotten a 667,000-vote margin from California’s uncounted absentee ballots alone! So much for Gore’s 500,000 popular vote “victory.” (That was the headline on the N.Y. Times, and it was the lead story on NBC Nightly News, right? No? You’re kidding.)

Getting back to the “win the popular vote/lose the Electoral College” scenario: Thank G-d we have that, or else California and N.Y. would determine every election. Every time....

Blog: Hillary wins the popular vote – not

 

[Jackson]

In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.

In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.

Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.

Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.

A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.

Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.

How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.

I would guess no one campaigned in Illinois or California...in essence, Hillary has a positive count before the election even started.

Well Trump probably didn't need to campaign in many other places either.

Although he was going to blue states, hoping to flip them. It was controversial, but he did flip them! Their internal polls must have indicated how the polls by other sources were all wrong.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.

In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.

Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.

Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.

A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.

Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.

How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.

Why not try for a constitutional amendment?

Really. Why don't you?

Because one person can't do it on their own. You need to get support of enough people.

And you know you won't. Understood.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The office is called "President of The United STATES". Not "President of the people of....".

OK, so by definition the states choose the president and the vehicle is The Electoral College System.

Which worked OK when states were just beginning to be populated.

But now that's all changed and population change is minimal.

So the system should be changed.

Keeping the "President of The United STATES" concept that's in the constitution the simple approach would be to make the distribution of electoral votes fair and equitable. One EV per state. The one (1, libs) per state would be required to go to the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. Won by a simple majority. So if there were three candidates and each of two got 33% of the vote (66%) but the other one got 34% then there's the winner!

Get it done and the interests of states like Hawaii and Alaska would be on a level court with California and Illinois.

Yeah. That Would be fair!

Your program to create an amendment awaits you.

 

[TemplarKormac]