Maryland has officially taken first step to succeed the union

[Pogo]

Why is it wrong for the person who gets the most individual votes to be POTUS? Why should a person's vote in Vermont be worth more than a person's vote in Texas?

The person who gets the most votes in the most states is the reason for the EC. With just a popular vote the high population centers would have all the power, and the local population areas would have no power. That's just the facts

So you if you live in NY, California, or Texas, you don't have a problem with that fact that your vote isn't worth as much as someone else's in Kentucky, Nebraska, or Idaho?

Nonsense. Clearly indicative of the ignorance prevalent on the left.

Contrary to your misinformation, election of the president is the result of a series of elections held in 51 states (including DC). The winner of each of those INDIVIDUAL elections is awarded the Electoral College votes for that state. The winner of the most electoral votes is declared President by the House of Representatives.

Every vote in New York counts for just as much as any other vote in New York. Every vote in Texas counts just as much as any other vote in Texas. It is immaterial at the national level.

Nope. And I already explained why that's bullshit in 29.

ANYONE who lives in a lock-red or lock-blue state effectively has no vote. It's already decided for you. Even if you agree with how your state is voting it's already decided.

That means there's no point in your voting for President. Your state will vote the way it votes whether any individual agrees, disagrees, or doesn't participate. That's what it means.

Well out of those three guess which takes the least amount of time and energy for exactly the same return.

MOREOVER, it perpetuates the Duopoly. Because there's ****-all chance of a 3P or 4P candy getting traction when the state's EVs are going R or D anyway which means that 3P gets nothing, guaranteed.

Dispute that.

 

[IsaacNewton]

California is set to vote on a referendum in 2019 on seceding. And it is time. The blue states are the ones with the economies and the money. The only real red state that has a respectable economy is Taxus, so let the south and a few other states make their exit and become a poor version of Czechoslovakia, which is what they already are in spirit. Then they'll have no one to whine about. Imagine that, their own redneck country that they'll have to be responsible for and nobody to ***** about on conservative radio or Faux News.

But it's time, it's clear there are just too many conservatives who can't accept anyone that is different than they are, so say buhbye and via con dios, well for them it's a fake god, but whatever.

Without the drain of having to carry the red states which are the large drain on welfare in the country the blue states will lose a huge ball and chain on their ankle. We'll ban selling or showing any movies in Fake Jesustoria and they'll only have NASCAR as a sport as all blacks will be banned from living there.

The sooner the better. The whining and bitching has just worn out it's welcome. Go have your Klan seated as the Supreme Court cons and stop whining to the rest of the world.

So when there was talk of Texas leaving as I recall you all claimed that was wrong dangerous and stupid. Now it is smart cause your person lost? LOL children.

Nah, cons have been clammering for it for decades and after you hear it for a while it just becomes noise. But I believe you people now, we are two different countries. The blue states are the economy that drives the United States and red states are the takers of welfare and government assistance. Time to ween the pigs off the teet and let you fend for yourself.

It is a real thing in California and California drives what happens in the country so if California votes for it it will become very possible.

I sense your reluctance to go now though. I don't blame you as conservatives have a tough time giving up on free stuff. A red state country wouldn't know how to make money and your draconian social laws would drive business out of Fake Jesusland to the blue states where they can make money. But, you will have the oil in Taxus, gun shops, and liquor stores. Fun times!

 

[Lewdog]

Why is it wrong for the person who gets the most individual votes to be POTUS? Why should a person's vote in Vermont be worth more than a person's vote in Texas?

The person who gets the most votes in the most states is the reason for the EC. With just a popular vote the high population centers would have all the power, and the local population areas would have no power. That's just the facts

So you if you live in NY, California, or Texas, you don't have a problem with that fact that your vote isn't worth as much as someone else's in Kentucky, Nebraska, or Idaho?

Nonsense. Clearly indicative of the ignorance prevalent on the left.

Contrary to your misinformation, election of the president is the result of a series of elections held in 51 states (including DC). The winner of each of those INDIVIDUAL elections is awarded the Electoral College votes for that state. The winner of the most electoral votes is declared President by the House of Representatives.

Every vote in New York counts for just as much as any other vote in New York. Every vote in Texas counts just as much as any other vote in Texas. It is immaterial at the national level.

Nice try to spread the ignorance, though.

No, wrong. Once again... why should a person who lives in Idaho have a vote worth more than a person's vote in Texas? Might as well go back to making Black people only being worth 2/3rds of a person. that's what the Electoral College is doing.

Arizona's voters worth is #1, and California is dead last.

2016’s States with the Most and Least Powerful Voters

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Now if just Ca. will follow.

Maryland sidesteps electoral college

Its just Maryland throwing a hissy fit. Gonna be a lot of that.

that was actually Maryland throwing a hissy fit 10 years ago, It was that buffoon Martin OweMalleys idea. personally I think it strips the voters of Maryland their equal say in an election. What if the state voted by a large margin for Donald Trump, yet the overall vote in the country was for Hillary, Maryland is going to tell its own voters to go to hell and give the electoral votes to someone other than indicated by the actual Maryland vote.
We should all take a moment to pray and thank God that Owe'Malley never made it to the presidents office. He would have been worse than obama and Hillary combined.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why is it wrong for the person who gets the most individual votes to be POTUS? Why should a person's vote in Vermont be worth more than a person's vote in Texas?

The person who gets the most votes in the most states is the reason for the EC. With just a popular vote the high population centers would have all the power, and the local population areas would have no power. That's just the facts

So you if you live in NY, California, or Texas, you don't have a problem with that fact that your vote isn't worth as much as someone else's in Kentucky, Nebraska, or Idaho?

Nonsense. Clearly indicative of the ignorance prevalent on the left.

Contrary to your misinformation, election of the president is the result of a series of elections held in 51 states (including DC). The winner of each of those INDIVIDUAL elections is awarded the Electoral College votes for that state. The winner of the most electoral votes is declared President by the House of Representatives.

Every vote in New York counts for just as much as any other vote in New York. Every vote in Texas counts just as much as any other vote in Texas. It is immaterial at the national level.

Nope. And I already explained why that's bullshit.

ANYONE who lives in a lock-red or lock-blue state effectively has no vote. It's already decided for you. Even if you agree with how your state is voting it's already decided.

That means there's no point in your voting for President. Your state will vote the way it votes whether any individual agrees, disagrees, or doesn't participate. That's what it means.

Well out of those three guess which takes the least amount of time and energy for exactly the same return.

Simply not true, Wisconsin and Michigan` were considered lock blue and how did they vote?Same with Pennsylvania.

 

[Rustic]

Could you imagine if Blue States were able to secede? We would have to build walls to keep out poor, ignorant and uneducated right wingers who can't speak understandable English and who want to take our kids minimum wage jobs. We can't let that happen.

This is how it would be divided up if you went by red and blue votes...

Again-- no Dippy. That's how it looks going by LAND AREA. Acres don't vote. PEOPLE do.

This is how it actually looks based on vote density (from 2012):

​

See any state lines there? No. 'That's because state lines are artificial.
See any delineated counties? Again, no because counties don't vote unanimously as your map implies.

Stop thinking like a binary bot.

By the way, your map is wrong by voter density look at the blue areas up in the North Dakota and South Dakota areas there is no significant population in them areas of blue those are Indian reservations with next to no population. Lol

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Closed. The thread title has nothing to do with what the OP linked to