Revisiting That Dirty Popular Vote Thing Again

[Ame®icano]

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

"Many feel?"

LOL

That feeling is somehow always related to losing the elections: "we lost, we have to do something".

The electoral college protects the interests of smaller states, so their vote counts too. What's wrong with that?

OK, let me ask you this: should non citizens be counted by census towards state representation in Congress?

How does It protect the smaller states? Can you give an example?

I think it makes sense for residents to be represented and I think the citizenship issue needs to be addressed and fixed by congress

It's been explained number of times.

If you need to campaign in four most populous states to win the popular vote of the whole country, why would you campaign in North Dakota? It's easier to import half a million of illegals into California and give them driver's license, and wink while you tell them "you can't vote".

A popular vote system applied to the last election makes California’s results an advantage to republicans over the EC advantage that went to the Dems. It would have been a 6 point swing in favor as the Republicans.

If true, how Hillary got all of 55 California's EC votes?

 

[hadit]

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

"Many feel?"

LOL

That feeling is somehow always related to losing the elections: "we lost, we have to do something".

The electoral college protects the interests of smaller states, so their vote counts too. What's wrong with that?

OK, let me ask you this: should non citizens be counted by census towards state representation in Congress?

How does It protect the smaller states? Can you give an example?

I think it makes sense for residents to be represented and I think the citizenship issue needs to be addressed and fixed by congress

It's been explained number of times.

If you need to campaign in four most populous states to win the popular vote of the whole country, why would you campaign in North Dakota? It's easier to import half a million of illegals into California and give them driver's license, and wink while you tell them "you can't vote".

A popular vote system applied to the last election makes California’s results an advantage to republicans over the EC advantage that went to the Dems. It would have been a 6 point swing in favor as the Republicans.

Probably bigger, because many CA Republicans likely don't bother voting for president as it's a foregone conclusion that the state will go blue. Now, if Arnold was eligible to run for president and got the nomination, the state could be up for grabs.

 

[Slade3200]

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

"Many feel?"

LOL

That feeling is somehow always related to losing the elections: "we lost, we have to do something".

The electoral college protects the interests of smaller states, so their vote counts too. What's wrong with that?

OK, let me ask you this: should non citizens be counted by census towards state representation in Congress?

How does It protect the smaller states? Can you give an example?

I think it makes sense for residents to be represented and I think the citizenship issue needs to be addressed and fixed by congress

It's been explained number of times.

If you need to campaign in four most populous states to win the popular vote of the whole country, why would you campaign in North Dakota? It's easier to import half a million of illegals into California and give them driver's license, and wink while you tell them "you can't vote".

A popular vote system applied to the last election makes California’s results an advantage to republicans over the EC advantage that went to the Dems. It would have been a 6 point swing in favor as the Republicans.

If true, how Hillary got all of 55 California's EC votes?

she got that because of the electoral college system. 55 votes amounts to over 10% of the total vote. IF it was a popular vote system Hillary would get less than 7% and Trump would have gotten 3.5%. Thats a 6 point swing in Trumps favor. Do the math

 

[Slade3200]

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

"Many feel?"

LOL

That feeling is somehow always related to losing the elections: "we lost, we have to do something".

The electoral college protects the interests of smaller states, so their vote counts too. What's wrong with that?

OK, let me ask you this: should non citizens be counted by census towards state representation in Congress?

How does It protect the smaller states? Can you give an example?

I think it makes sense for residents to be represented and I think the citizenship issue needs to be addressed and fixed by congress

It's been explained number of times.

If you need to campaign in four most populous states to win the popular vote of the whole country, why would you campaign in North Dakota? It's easier to import half a million of illegals into California and give them driver's license, and wink while you tell them "you can't vote".

A popular vote system applied to the last election makes California’s results an advantage to republicans over the EC advantage that went to the Dems. It would have been a 6 point swing in favor as the Republicans.

Probably bigger, because many CA Republicans likely don't bother voting for president as it's a foregone conclusion that the state will go blue. Now, if Arnold was eligible to run for president and got the nomination, the state could be up for grabs.

Exactly... all the republican votes get tossed in the garbage so why bother?

 

[Ame®icano]

"Many feel?"

LOL

That feeling is somehow always related to losing the elections: "we lost, we have to do something".

The electoral college protects the interests of smaller states, so their vote counts too. What's wrong with that?

OK, let me ask you this: should non citizens be counted by census towards state representation in Congress?

How does It protect the smaller states? Can you give an example?

I think it makes sense for residents to be represented and I think the citizenship issue needs to be addressed and fixed by congress

It's been explained number of times.

If you need to campaign in four most populous states to win the popular vote of the whole country, why would you campaign in North Dakota? It's easier to import half a million of illegals into California and give them driver's license, and wink while you tell them "you can't vote".

A popular vote system applied to the last election makes California’s results an advantage to republicans over the EC advantage that went to the Dems. It would have been a 6 point swing in favor as the Republicans.

If true, how Hillary got all of 55 California's EC votes?

she got that because of the electoral college system. 55 votes amounts to over 10% of the total vote. IF it was a popular vote system Hillary would get less than 7% and Trump would have gotten 3.5%. Thats a 6 point swing in Trumps favor. Do the math

Although math is correct, you're comparing apples from oranges.

Even with your "6 point swing" Trump would lose the election. How that works in "his favor"?

 

[Ame®icano]

"Many feel?"

LOL

That feeling is somehow always related to losing the elections: "we lost, we have to do something".

The electoral college protects the interests of smaller states, so their vote counts too. What's wrong with that?

OK, let me ask you this: should non citizens be counted by census towards state representation in Congress?

How does It protect the smaller states? Can you give an example?

I think it makes sense for residents to be represented and I think the citizenship issue needs to be addressed and fixed by congress

It's been explained number of times.

If you need to campaign in four most populous states to win the popular vote of the whole country, why would you campaign in North Dakota? It's easier to import half a million of illegals into California and give them driver's license, and wink while you tell them "you can't vote".

A popular vote system applied to the last election makes California’s results an advantage to republicans over the EC advantage that went to the Dems. It would have been a 6 point swing in favor as the Republicans.

Probably bigger, because many CA Republicans likely don't bother voting for president as it's a foregone conclusion that the state will go blue. Now, if Arnold was eligible to run for president and got the nomination, the state could be up for grabs.

Exactly... all the republican votes get tossed in the garbage so why bother?

So are Democrat votes in states where Republicans won.

 

[candycorn]

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Nobody would campaign outside of large population centers if we had straight PV determination of the President Elect. Also consider if in 20 years or so we get a popular citizen who decides to run and gets 25% of the vote—Dwayne Johnson, George Clooney or Rush Limbo are capable of doing so.

So the eventual victor will likely be someone who got 40%. We could have that now of course but it is more likely under the PV.

Sure they would why would it change where they campaign?

Are you serious? Picking up 25% in a metropolitan area will get you more votes than getting 25% in some states. No reason to go to Iowa.

Good point... the popular vote does not make the big cities and states more powerful, it actually makes places like California help Republicans much more than the current system. The difference is that it will make is minimizing the impact of the smaller battleground states. The way to counter this would be to allow the smaller states to cast their votes before the bigger states. This way there is political advantage towards campaigning and winning those states. Just like we see in the primary process. SC launched Biden’s campaign not because of the delegates gained but because of the campaign and victory.

That is actually the opposite of both what I said and reality as well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

yet you are for states with less population to be held to standards in CA and TX simply because they carry the most people. the needs of one are not the needs of all and all needs should be represented when possible.

you act as if these "arguments" you and others have are new. that perhaps our forefathers missed something along the way. no. the very reason we have the EC is to prevent what you are wanting done.

you are not advocating a system for us all, you are advocating a system that makes you personally happy and pretending everyone else should be happy for the same reasons.

Our forefathers missed a lot of things. They knew it when they wrote the constitution. They did not foresee a party system let alone states forcing their electors to vote for the popular vote winner.

Don’t bring up the founding fathers without acknowledging that our current EC is not the one they envisioned.

LOL did you know that until around 1824 MOST States did not have a vote for electors the Legislature of that State PICKED the electors. So much for what the Founders really wanted.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

would it surprise you to learn that. California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue...

This is a lie.

You’re right, Cali went red decades ago. I lied. Best to not trust anything I say or engage in the actual debate. Do yourself a favor and press that little ignore button by my name

Actually, if one actually bothers with the FACTS, going back to the beginning of this country, this whole nation voted Blue for 28 years (CA didn't exist yet).

Then California voted RED for 24 years.

Then after a time, CA voted RED again straight for 20 years.

Then after a time, CA voted BLUE for 24 years.

Then after a time, CA voted RED again for 16 years.

Then after a time, CA voted straight RED for another stretch of 28 years.

And now CA has voted Blue for 32 years.

Each of these was counted from the time of the last alternate party vote to the next change in party vote.

So the current Blue trend proves nothing.

California is actually due / overdue to vote Red again.

That’s an interesting and well stated point. Doesn’t have anything to do with my point about the influence in the EC college or popular vote topic but I’ll take it over the gotchya word game stuff

The vast majority of States in the beginning picked electors NOT by a vote of the people but by the State legislature.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, he cares.

I'm sure he's thinking about it as he signs executive orders that dismantle The Obama's legacy.

Don't put your back out moving those goal posts.

Truth hurts, eh?

He's sure having a difficult time of it. Anyway, Trump trying to erase Obama's legacy says more about how insecure Trump is than anything else. Just can't stand being less liked.

Name anything from Barry's legacy that is worth keeping.

Decency and most everything else.

 

[HappyJoy]

He's sure having a difficult time of it. Anyway, Trump trying to erase Obama's legacy says more about how insecure Trump is than anything else. Just can't stand being less liked.

What else do ya' got, right?

Well, I have you, and you keep me laughing, so...

How do you have me

Um...
You say funny things, and I laugh at them - thus, when you ask what else I have -- I have you.
You people are cats to Trump's laser pointer. Keep up the good work.

This was my full reply to you, why not respond to the whole thing?

How do you have me He lost the popular vote and every indication is that he cares very much about it. No matter how much you switch and bounce around on the subject that is still where we are at.

 

[airplanemechanic]

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Nobody would campaign outside of large population centers if we had straight PV determination of the President Elect. Also consider if in 20 years or so we get a popular citizen who decides to run and gets 25% of the vote—Dwayne Johnson, George Clooney or Rush Limbo are capable of doing so.

So the eventual victor will likely be someone who got 40%. We could have that now of course but it is more likely under the PV.

Sure they would why would it change where they campaign?

Are you serious? Picking up 25% in a metropolitan area will get you more votes than getting 25% in some states. No reason to go to Iowa.

And this is EXACTLY why we need the electoral college.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What else do ya' got, right?

Well, I have you, and you keep me laughing, so...

How do you have me

Um...
You say funny things, and I laugh at them - thus, when you ask what else I have -- I have you.
You people are cats to Trump's laser pointer. Keep up the good work.

This was my full reply to you, why not respond to the whole thing?

Your bigoted, hyper-partisan trolling? It speaks for itself.
But hey - thanks for another laugh!

 

[HappyJoy]

What else do ya' got, right?

Well, I have you, and you keep me laughing, so...

How do you have me

Um...
You say funny things, and I laugh at them - thus, when you ask what else I have -- I have you.
You people are cats to Trump's laser pointer. Keep up the good work.

This was my full reply to you, why not respond to the whole thing?

Your bigoted, hyper-partisan trolling? It speaks for itself.
But hey - thanks for another laugh!

He lost the popular vote and every indication is that he cares very much about it. No matter how much you switch and bounce around on the subject that is still where we are at.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, I have you, and you keep me laughing, so...

How do you have me

Um...
You say funny things, and I laugh at them - thus, when you ask what else I have -- I have you.
You people are cats to Trump's laser pointer. Keep up the good work.

This was my full reply to you, why not respond to the whole thing?

Your bigoted, hyper-partisan trolling? It speaks for itself.
But hey - thanks for another laugh!

He lost the popular vote and every indication is that he cares very much about it. No matter how much you switch and bounce around on the subject that is still where we are at.

Indications? Such as what?

 

[HappyJoy]

How do you have me

Um...
You say funny things, and I laugh at them - thus, when you ask what else I have -- I have you.
You people are cats to Trump's laser pointer. Keep up the good work.

This was my full reply to you, why not respond to the whole thing?

Your bigoted, hyper-partisan trolling? It speaks for itself.
But hey - thanks for another laugh!

He lost the popular vote and every indication is that he cares very much about it. No matter how much you switch and bounce around on the subject that is still where we are at.

Indications? Such as what?

Lying about millions of illegal votes and having his toady insist and lie for him about the size of his inauguration. It's embarrassing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Um...
You say funny things, and I laugh at them - thus, when you ask what else I have -- I have you.
You people are cats to Trump's laser pointer. Keep up the good work.

This was my full reply to you, why not respond to the whole thing?

Your bigoted, hyper-partisan trolling? It speaks for itself.
But hey - thanks for another laugh!

He lost the popular vote and every indication is that he cares very much about it. No matter how much you switch and bounce around on the subject that is still where we are at.

Indications? Such as what?

Lying about millions of illegal votes and having his toady insist and lie for him about the size of his inauguration. It's embarrassing.

I don't know what either has to do with it. To be totally honest, I think Trump didn't even expect to get elected yet alone care about the popular vote. I really don't know why he would care. He won. He surprised most people in the country. It's quite a feat. He campaigned night and day while Hillary was getting drunk in her well stocked wine cellar right next to her server.

As for the inauguration, I think Trump understands it was not going to be like his rallies in a very liberal town.

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States marked commencement of the term of Donald Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice President. An estimated 300,000 to 600,000[1][2] people attended the public ceremony held on Friday, January 20, 2017, on the West Front of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

 

[HappyJoy]

This was my full reply to you, why not respond to the whole thing?

Your bigoted, hyper-partisan trolling? It speaks for itself.
But hey - thanks for another laugh!

He lost the popular vote and every indication is that he cares very much about it. No matter how much you switch and bounce around on the subject that is still where we are at.

Indications? Such as what?

Lying about millions of illegal votes and having his toady insist and lie for him about the size of his inauguration. It's embarrassing.

I don't know what either has to do with it. To be totally honest, I think Trump didn't even expect to get elected yet alone care about the popular vote. I really don't know why he would care. He won. He surprised most people in the country. It's quite a feat. He campaigned night and day while Hillary was getting drunk in her well stocked wine cellar right next to her server.

As for the inauguration, I think Trump understands it was not going to be like his rallies in a very liberal town.

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States marked commencement of the term of Donald Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice President. An estimated 300,000 to 600,000[1][2] people attended the public ceremony held on Friday, January 20, 2017, on the West Front of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Why would Trump lie about voter fraud by the order of millions?

Why would Trump lie about his inauguration crowd size?

Such provably false lies that all have to either do with his popularity or whether he won the popular vote. I have no idea why you cultists keep making excuses for him.

 

[candycorn]

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Nobody would campaign outside of large population centers if we had straight PV determination of the President Elect. Also consider if in 20 years or so we get a popular citizen who decides to run and gets 25% of the vote—Dwayne Johnson, George Clooney or Rush Limbo are capable of doing so.

So the eventual victor will likely be someone who got 40%. We could have that now of course but it is more likely under the PV.

Sure they would why would it change where they campaign?

Are you serious? Picking up 25% in a metropolitan area will get you more votes than getting 25% in some states. No reason to go to Iowa.

And this is EXACTLY why we need the electoral college.

Just one of many good reasons why we need the EC.

 

[candycorn]

Your bigoted, hyper-partisan trolling? It speaks for itself.
But hey - thanks for another laugh!

He lost the popular vote and every indication is that he cares very much about it. No matter how much you switch and bounce around on the subject that is still where we are at.

Indications? Such as what?

Lying about millions of illegal votes and having his toady insist and lie for him about the size of his inauguration. It's embarrassing.

I don't know what either has to do with it. To be totally honest, I think Trump didn't even expect to get elected yet alone care about the popular vote. I really don't know why he would care. He won. He surprised most people in the country. It's quite a feat. He campaigned night and day while Hillary was getting drunk in her well stocked wine cellar right next to her server.

As for the inauguration, I think Trump understands it was not going to be like his rallies in a very liberal town.

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States marked commencement of the term of Donald Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice President. An estimated 300,000 to 600,000[1][2] people attended the public ceremony held on Friday, January 20, 2017, on the West Front of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Why would Trump lie about voter fraud by the order of millions?

Why would Trump lie about his inauguration crowd size?

Such provably false lies that all have to either do with his popularity or whether he won the popular vote. I have no idea why you cultists keep making excuses for him.

It’s a shame