Leftists Are You Still Eliminating The Electoral College Or Did That Fade Away Like The Pussy Hats?

[peach174]

No that's still being worked on: National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.



All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population



Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.



The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.



In 2017, the bill has passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country



NationalPopularVote

Well put.

Dumping the WTA system would send the candidates to states they never visit because under the present system they take for granted that they're going to win (or lose) that state regardless what they do. Clinton would have had a reason to go to Utah. Rump would have had a reason to go to Massachusetts. And Alaska and Hawaìi might finally be visited by anybody.

It would mean that all those Rump voters in California and all those Clinton voters in Texas would have their votes actually count.

It would erase the bullshit term "battleground state" or "swing state" --- which would not exist without the inane WTA system --- and make *all* states relevant. And it would dramatically raise our national voter participation rate from the laughingstock 55% of 2016 more toward that of France (68%), Denmark (80%) or Belgium (87%). The reason our rate is embarrassingly low is because most of us live in locked-red or locked-blue states which means there's no reason to leave the house on election day --- whether you vote with your state, vote against your state, vote for a third party or don't vote at all, the EC result is the same in each case. Consequently 45% of the electorate is pushed to think, "fuck it, what's the point?".

It would also allow third parties to finally breathe and break the stranglehold of the Duopoly. And there's no downside to sending a message to an entrenched political party out for nothing more than self-perpetuation that "you ain't all that" and we shall feel free to look elsewhere. That's a model of free-market competition. The Duopoly LOOOOVES them some WTA Electoral College. It's what keeps them a Duopoly.

I wonder how many would refuse to vote when conservatives and independents no longer have a voice, they are the ones who voted for him and they are in both parties.
If we go with popular vote you might as well get rid of the beautiful Republic that we are.
You all deserve your Democracy.
Go ahead and burn like Europe.

I'll sit back and mourn for the freedoms we use to have, if accomplished.
We have very little left as it is with both parties totally ignoring it.
I will never vote again if we go full democracy.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No that's still being worked on: National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.



All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population



Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.



The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.



In 2017, the bill has passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country



NationalPopularVote

The split-vote idea doesn't necessarily mean changing the electoral college representation. For example, Alaska with 3 electoral votes for such a small population, would still get those 3 votes to divide up into tenths of a percentage point. If it went 60% Republican and 40% Democrat, the votes would be split 1.8 to 1.2.

 

[12icer]

No that's still being worked on: National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.



All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population



Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.



The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.



In 2017, the bill has passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country



NationalPopularVote

How do you think that will work? It is unconstitutional, BECAUSE WHY???? the idea that a state would give its delegates to a person that less than 1/3 of its citizens voted for would be a complete disaster. The idea is just another man we can win again BS fantasy. Besides Trump would have won the majority of the popular vote in a runoff election. by a 1.5% margin.

 

[Pogo]

No that's still being worked on: National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.



All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population



Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.



The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.



In 2017, the bill has passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country



NationalPopularVote

Well put.

Dumping the WTA system would send the candidates to states they never visit because under the present system they take for granted that they're going to win (or lose) that state regardless what they do. Clinton would have had a reason to go to Utah. Rump would have had a reason to go to Massachusetts. And Alaska and Hawaìi might finally be visited by anybody.

It would mean that all those Rump voters in California and all those Clinton voters in Texas would have their votes actually count.

It would erase the bullshit term "battleground state" or "swing state" --- which would not exist without the inane WTA system --- and make *all* states relevant. And it would dramatically raise our national voter participation rate from the laughingstock 55% of 2016 more toward that of France (68%), Denmark (80%) or Belgium (87%). The reason our rate is embarrassingly low is because most of us live in locked-red or locked-blue states which means there's no reason to leave the house on election day --- whether you vote with your state, vote against your state, vote for a third party or don't vote at all, the EC result is the same in each case. Consequently 45% of the electorate is pushed to think, "fuck it, what's the point?".

It would also allow third parties to finally breathe and break the stranglehold of the Duopoly. And there's no downside to sending a message to an entrenched political party out for nothing more than self-perpetuation that "you ain't all that" and we shall feel free to look elsewhere. That's a model of free-market competition. The Duopoly LOOOOVES them some WTA Electoral College. It's what keeps them a Duopoly.

I wonder how many would refuse to vote when conservatives and independents no longer have a voice, they are the ones who voted for him and they are in both parties.
If we go with popular vote you might as well get rid of the beautiful Republic that we are.
You all deserve your Democracy.
Go ahead and burn like Europe.

I'll sit back and mourn for the freedoms we use to have, if accomplished.
We have very little left as it is with both parties totally ignoring it.
I will never vote again if we go full democracy.

Again ---- those who voted in the cited example of California for Rump......4.48 million of them...... had no voice at all. And who knows how many didn't bother because they actually knew they'd have no voice.

That's entirely the fault of the WTA system. And that needs no "mourning". It just needs to go, yesterday.

 

[Pogo]

No that's still being worked on: National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.



All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population



Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.



The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.



In 2017, the bill has passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country



NationalPopularVote

How do you think that will work? It is unconstitutional, BECAUSE WHY???? the idea that a state would give its delegates to a person that less than 1/3 of its citizens voted for would be a complete disaster. The idea is just another man we can win again BS fantasy. Besides Trump would have won the majority of the popular vote in a runoff election. by a 1.5% margin.

There's nothing in the world "unconstitutional" about it. The Constitution simply says the several states will send electors. HOW they pick those electors is entirely up to the states. Maine and Nebraska already don't use the WTA, which is mentioned absolutely nowhere in the Constitution. Actually the Constitution doesn't require us to have an election at all. For all those that try to fly the idea that the FAA or whatever regulatory body is "unconstitutional" because it's not mentioned in there ---- by that logic elections themselves are unconstitutional.

Go read your Constitution. Would you like to borrow my copy?

 

[Seawytch]

"The electoral college is a disaster for democracy." - Donald J. Trump.

Finally! Something on which the liberals can agree with Donald Trump!

Not just liberals.

But in the weeks before the November 7, 2000, election, it seemed more likely that Gore would get a majority of electoral votes, while Bush, lifted by a wide margin in his home state of Texas, would have the most votes by actual people. This possibility was widely discussed, including in the Boston Globe and Christian Science Monitor and in an Associated Press polling analysis.

Gore was even preemptively criticized for winning under these circumstances. It “would be an outrage” said Rep. Ray LaHood, R.-Ill.

 

[Seawytch]

All you need to win the popular vote is New England and California.

Fuck you "flyover country"!

Yeah, one person, one vote...who needs it. It's so much better to have four votes in Wyoming to California's one.

 

[Seawytch]

Pogo, Trump has even said that if we didn't have the electoral college system, he would have spent way more time in California.

And Clinton would have spent more time in Southern states.

 

[g5000]

All you need to win the popular vote is New England and California.

Fuck you "flyover country"!

Yeah, one person, one vote...who needs it. It's so much better to have four votes in Wyoming to California's one.

Better to have Wyoming's vote count than have their interests steamrolled by Californians.

 

[Siete]

evidentaly, RussianWingers must be the biggest losers on the planet. If and when they finally do win something they never STFU ABOUT IT !!!


they prolly still have the gold star their 1st grade teacher stuck on their forehead for not pissing in their pants during recess.

 

[peach174]

No that's still being worked on: National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.



All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population



Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.



The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.



In 2017, the bill has passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country



NationalPopularVote

Well put.

Dumping the WTA system would send the candidates to states they never visit because under the present system they take for granted that they're going to win (or lose) that state regardless what they do. Clinton would have had a reason to go to Utah. Rump would have had a reason to go to Massachusetts. And Alaska and Hawaìi might finally be visited by anybody.

It would mean that all those Rump voters in California and all those Clinton voters in Texas would have their votes actually count.

It would erase the bullshit term "battleground state" or "swing state" --- which would not exist without the inane WTA system --- and make *all* states relevant. And it would dramatically raise our national voter participation rate from the laughingstock 55% of 2016 more toward that of France (68%), Denmark (80%) or Belgium (87%). The reason our rate is embarrassingly low is because most of us live in locked-red or locked-blue states which means there's no reason to leave the house on election day --- whether you vote with your state, vote against your state, vote for a third party or don't vote at all, the EC result is the same in each case. Consequently 45% of the electorate is pushed to think, "fuck it, what's the point?".

It would also allow third parties to finally breathe and break the stranglehold of the Duopoly. And there's no downside to sending a message to an entrenched political party out for nothing more than self-perpetuation that "you ain't all that" and we shall feel free to look elsewhere. That's a model of free-market competition. The Duopoly LOOOOVES them some WTA Electoral College. It's what keeps them a Duopoly.

I wonder how many would refuse to vote when conservatives and independents no longer have a voice, they are the ones who voted for him and they are in both parties.
If we go with popular vote you might as well get rid of the beautiful Republic that we are.
You all deserve your Democracy.
Go ahead and burn like Europe.

I'll sit back and mourn for the freedoms we use to have, if accomplished.
We have very little left as it is with both parties totally ignoring it.
I will never vote again if we go full democracy.

Again ---- those who voted in the cited example of California for Rump......4.48 million of them...... had no voice at all. And who knows how many didn't bother because they actually knew they'd have no voice.

That's entirely the fault of the WTA system. And that needs no "mourning". It just needs to go, yesterday.

Yes they did Pogo. Their counties were represented. Look at the red in California counties.

If we went popular, the people in Tucson and Phoenix are of liberal ideology and they live in the largest areas of the State.
The rest of the State is conservative and smaller in population ,which lean towards conservative ideology.
If we went with the popular vote ,only the larger populated cities would have representation and their ideology.
It wipes out the rest of the States votes as conservatives and independents or any chance of new parties.

 

[Pogo]

Yes they did Pogo. Their counties were represented. Look at the red in California counties.

No, they did not (have a voice). All 55 of California's electors went to Congress and said "wow, it's amazing --- everybody in California, every last voter, voted for Hillary Clinton". And that's an outright lie. And they did the same outright lie in 47 other states, pretending a fantasy world of unanimous votes that simply does not exist.

Maine and Nebraska were only marginally more honest, reporting that "not everybody in our state voted for either A or B, but everybody in this district voted for A and everybody in that district voted for B". Which is still a lie.

ERGO -- everybody in California (or New York or Virginia, etc) who voted for Rump, and every voter in Texas (or Alabama or Florida or South Dakota etc) who voted for Clinton --- had their votes just flushed down the toilet.

Which is exactly why only 55% of the electorate (which is a typical rate for us, abysmal for nations in general) bothered to come out to vote. Millions of us already know our vote will be flushed down that toilet, so why bother?

We had a vote here in a so-called "battleground state". My friends and relatives in Mississippi and Washington and California and Texas, and a whole lot of other states, had no vote. They had a sham. Their state's vote was predetermined by the WTA, regardless who they voted for and regardless if they voted at all. Didn't make a damn bit of difference. Even if they got their preference they had no say in it. Because it was going to happen with or without them.

Now that's what I call having no voice.

If we went popular, the people in Tucson and Phoenix are of liberal ideology and they live in the largest areas of the State.
The rest of the State is conservative and smaller in population ,which lean towards conservative ideology.
If we went with the popular vote ,only the larger populated cities would have representation and their ideology.
It wipes out the rest of the States votes as conservatives and independents or any chance of new parties.

Hey, that's how majority rule works. Higher number prevails.

When you vote for a governor to run your state ---- do those various counties send in "electors" to claim that "wowie, everybody in this county unanimously voted for Zippo"? No, you do it by popular vote. Everybody in every county has their vote actually count --- even if they're in a minority within that county. A Senate election ---- same thing.

Now apply that to the greater whole.

 

[Pogo]

All you need to win the popular vote is New England and California.

Fuck you "flyover country"!

Yeah, one person, one vote...who needs it. It's so much better to have four votes in Wyoming to California's one.

Better to have Wyoming's vote count than have their interests steamrolled by Californians.

That's why we have a Senate.

 

[peach174]

Yes they did Pogo. Their counties were represented. Look at the red in California counties.

No, they did not (have a voice). All 55 of California's electors went to Congress and said "wow, it's amazing --- everybody in California, every last voter, voted for Hillary Clinton". And that's an outright lie. And they did the same outright lie in 47 other states, pretending a fantasy world of unanimous votes that simply does not exist.

Maine and Nebraska were only marginally more honest, reporting that "not everybody in our state voted for either A or B, but everybody in this district voted for A and everybody in that district voted for B". Which is still a lie.

ERGO -- everybody in California (or New York or Virginia, etc) who voted for Rump, and every voter in Texas (or Alabama or Florida or South Dakota etc) who voted for Clinton --- had their votes just flushed down the toilet.

Which is exactly why only 55% of the electorate (which is a typical rate for us, abysmal for nations in general) bothered to come out to vote. Millions of us already know our vote will be flushed down that toilet, so why bother?

We had a vote here in a so-called "battleground state". My friends and relatives in Mississippi and Washington and California and Texas, and a whole lot of other states, had no vote. They had a sham. Their state's vote was predetermined by the WTA, regardless who they voted for and regardless if they voted at all. Didn't make a damn bit of difference. Even if they got their preference they had no say in it. Because it was going to happen with or without them.

Now that's what I call having no voice.

If we went popular, the people in Tucson and Phoenix are of liberal ideology and they live in the largest areas of the State.
The rest of the State is conservative and smaller in population ,which lean towards conservative ideology.
If we went with the popular vote ,only the larger populated cities would have representation and their ideology.
It wipes out the rest of the States votes as conservatives and independents or any chance of new parties.

Hey, that's how majority rule works. Higher number prevails.

When you vote for a governor to run your state ---- do those various counties send in "electors" to claim that "wowie, everybody in this county unanimously voted for Zippo"? No, you do it by popular vote. Everybody in every county has their vote actually count --- even if they're in a minority within that county. A Senate election ---- same thing.

Now apply that to the greater whole.

You'll never get it.
It's about smaller populations and differing political ideologies.
Liberal ideology wins only because they live in the larger populated cities.
Any others will not,nor would we be, able to get any third parties for independents who want their ideology represented.
The Democratic party has only one ideology now, far left.

 

[Markle]

well,,the Dems had the house/senate in 2009,,,what were they waiting for? Maybe they just assumed the GOP would never be in power again?

It requires a Constitutional Amendment. Which, given the reason, is not possible. It wouldn't only be difficult, it is impossible.

I don't see the point in discussing something which is impossible. Few things could be less relevant.

 

[Markle]

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

Which makes great sense considering we have the Representative Republic form of government.

 

[mdk]

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

Which makes great sense considering we have the Representative Republic.

Tell that to Trump. Those are his words.

 

[g5000]

All you need to win the popular vote is New England and California.

Fuck you "flyover country"!

Yeah, one person, one vote...who needs it. It's so much better to have four votes in Wyoming to California's one.

Better to have Wyoming's vote count than have their interests steamrolled by Californians.

That's why we have a Senate.

It is why Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures! They aren't any more.

Senators, too, are now elected by popularity contest.

The electoral college is the last backstop.

 

[peach174]

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

Which makes great sense considering we have the Representative Republic.

Tell that to Trump. Those are his words.

What that he's correct?
We are not a democracy and the electoral college just stopped Social Democracy.

 

[mdk]

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

Which makes great sense considering we have the Representative Republic.

Tell that to Trump. Those are his words.

What that he's correct?
We are not a democracy and the electoral college just stopped Social Democracy.

I know we are not a democracy. Trump apparently didn't know that fact when he tweeted his dislike of the Electoral College several years ago.