The National Popular vote, myths of small pop states and cities.

[mikegriffith1]

By winner I think you are referring to Trump. I do not think he is a winner. Look at the mess he has created.

Uhhhhhh. . . . What "mess"? A growing, improving economy? Tax policy that is now attracting American companies to return to the U.S.? Tax policy that is attracting trillions of dollars in capital that was previously parked overseas? Tax cuts that have put hundreds of billions of dollars back into the pockets of middle-class families? The lowest rate of unemployment claims in over 40 years? The lowest black and Hispanic unemployment that we've seen in decades? Exactly what "mess" are you talking about?

Tax cuts that will add hundreds of billions to the deficit. . . .

You know that's false. It has been pointed out to you dozens of times, with revenue data, that federal revenue has increased after every major tax cut since the early 1900s.

 

[asaratis]

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. **** that!

You see by the above that this is not about any principles other than the conservative desire to jigger the system in a way that they think gives their conservative minority disproportionate power.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

did you just take a stand against women's suffrage? lolol, classic rightwing nuttery.

How about the coloreds? Want to bring back founding fathers' ideas on them?

The founding fathers were the radicals of their time. Before them, the thought of democratic rule had only been contemplated since antiquity and thus they founded the very principles and institutions which brought about the emancipation of slaves and universal sufferage. Take a moment to reflect on that before you set about on your usual petulant whining about how everything is unfair and everybody who is not a white male is a victim.

In other words, grow up. Whiny and ignorant should not go on forever.

England abolished slavery before the US did, dumbass.

That in no way detracts from what Meathead posted. It is YOU that is a dumbass!

He's trying to claim that the Founders were solely responsible for the abolition of slavery and universal suffrage worldwide.

That is laughable.

I'll bet he doesn't know either that it was CONSERVATISM that resisted those changes throughout history.

It was the Democrats that resisted black civil rights for decades. It was the Democrats that founded the KKK. You seem to get a lot of shit backwards.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. **** that!

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

This is another prime example of liberals' ignorance of their own country's founding and form of government. Being students of history, the framers sought to avoid pure majority rule, knowing that the tyranny of the majority can be every bit as oppressive and ruinous as the tyranny of a corrupt king.

If you abolished the electoral college, many states would be ignored, outright ignored, which means that the millions of people in those states would effectively lose their voice in choosing a president.

As has been pointed out, the argument about "big cities" is a strawman. The point is that states with larger populations would get most of the attention, while other states would get little attention, and while other states would get no attention.

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

So basically, what Penelope is saying is----------->we want the states who already REFUSE to follow federal law (sanctuary cities/illegal aliens) in charge of the country; do I have that correctly?

Personally, I believe if the Left were to pull this off, they might get a rude awakening!

Follow the logic here---------> In California, because of the leftist rules, except for red areas, there is no reason for a Republican to vote. Basically for senator, their is always 2 Democrats, governor same thing. The Republicans just, stay home unless they have a chance in their district. The Left has sown up California by the election rules for any office. The top 2 vote getters are on the ballot, always meaning Democrats.

Now, if they put in this system, the Republicans have a reason to vote in dark blue areas of California and New York. Of course, it also means that Democrats would vote more in deep red areas also; but by their own admission, the red areas are SMALLER, just more plentiful.

I contend that IF this system was in place, Trump would have won the popular vote! Always remember-------------> where can't Republicans win? Big cities! So who stays home there? Republicans. They can not switch the state to red by voting, but they can bring the vote count much closer if they have a reason to vote!

It is no coincidence that the vote tally of California was by itself, the margin of victory in the popular vote. Give California Republicans a voice, along with those in New York, and it is my contention that the Democratic votes would stay basically close to static in those areas, but the Republican votes would rise dramatically!

The electoral college is the main reason that so many states NOW are ignored.

No state is ignored.

You could not be more wrong.

Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States

 

[NYcarbineer]

By winner I think you are referring to Trump. I do not think he is a winner. Look at the mess he has created.

Uhhhhhh. . . . What "mess"? A growing, improving economy? Tax policy that is now attracting American companies to return to the U.S.? Tax policy that is attracting trillions of dollars in capital that was previously parked overseas? Tax cuts that have put hundreds of billions of dollars back into the pockets of middle-class families? The lowest rate of unemployment claims in over 40 years? The lowest black and Hispanic unemployment that we've seen in decades? Exactly what "mess" are you talking about?

Tax cuts that will add hundreds of billions to the deficit. . . .

You know that's false. It has been pointed out to you dozens of times, with revenue data, that federal revenue has increased after every major tax cut since the early 1900s.

Deficits have increased after every tax cut.

Revenues increase after every tax increase.

 

[Penelope]

By winner I think you are referring to Trump. I do not think he is a winner. Look at the mess he has created.

Uhhhhhh. . . . What "mess"? A growing, improving economy? Tax policy that is now enticing American companies to return to the U.S., and that is attracting trillions of dollars to America that was previously parked overseas? Putting hundreds of billions of dollars back into the pockets of middle-class families? Giving our companies a corporate income tax rate that has made them more competitive with Asian and European companies? The lowest number of unemployment claims in over 40 years? The lowest black and Hispanic unemployment rates that we've seen in decades? Exactly what "mess" are you talking about?

Cuts to all social programs, which you just might need one day, laissez -faire capitalism. Remains to be seen, the tax increased for the middle class will be eaten by increases in taxes of everything you buy and increase in prices due to tariffs. All I can see is stores laying off, of course you capitalist do not see that. All I can see is people going without healthcare and SNAP , but then again your free capitalist do not see that.

 

[asaratis]

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

This is another prime example of liberals' ignorance of their own country's founding and form of government. Being students of history, the framers sought to avoid pure majority rule, knowing that the tyranny of the majority can be every bit as oppressive and ruinous as the tyranny of a corrupt king.

If you abolished the electoral college, many states would be ignored, outright ignored, which means that the millions of people in those states would effectively lose their voice in choosing a president.

As has been pointed out, the argument about "big cities" is a strawman. The point is that states with larger populations would get most of the attention, while other states would get little attention, and while other states would get no attention.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

So basically, what Penelope is saying is----------->we want the states who already REFUSE to follow federal law (sanctuary cities/illegal aliens) in charge of the country; do I have that correctly?

Personally, I believe if the Left were to pull this off, they might get a rude awakening!

Follow the logic here---------> In California, because of the leftist rules, except for red areas, there is no reason for a Republican to vote. Basically for senator, their is always 2 Democrats, governor same thing. The Republicans just, stay home unless they have a chance in their district. The Left has sown up California by the election rules for any office. The top 2 vote getters are on the ballot, always meaning Democrats.

Now, if they put in this system, the Republicans have a reason to vote in dark blue areas of California and New York. Of course, it also means that Democrats would vote more in deep red areas also; but by their own admission, the red areas are SMALLER, just more plentiful.

I contend that IF this system was in place, Trump would have won the popular vote! Always remember-------------> where can't Republicans win? Big cities! So who stays home there? Republicans. They can not switch the state to red by voting, but they can bring the vote count much closer if they have a reason to vote!

It is no coincidence that the vote tally of California was by itself, the margin of victory in the popular vote. Give California Republicans a voice, along with those in New York, and it is my contention that the Democratic votes would stay basically close to static in those areas, but the Republican votes would rise dramatically!

The electoral college is the main reason that so many states NOW are ignored.

No state is ignored.

You could not be more wrong.

Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States

All states get TV campaign ads.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Time to get rid of the Electoral College:

Myths About Big Cities

As long as the Democratic Party promotes illegal voting and resists all attempts to secure legal voting across America .. it's a rotten idea.

View attachment 178653

View attachment 178651

Nobody asks me for ID when I use my credit card.

Depends on what you are buying and where.

Where do I have to show ID to use a credit card?

 

[Penelope]

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

This is another prime example of liberals' ignorance of their own country's founding and form of government. Being students of history, the framers sought to avoid pure majority rule, knowing that the tyranny of the majority can be every bit as oppressive and ruinous as the tyranny of a corrupt king.

If you abolished the electoral college, many states would be ignored, outright ignored, which means that the millions of people in those states would effectively lose their voice in choosing a president.

As has been pointed out, the argument about "big cities" is a strawman. The point is that states with larger populations would get most of the attention, while other states would get little attention, and while other states would get no attention.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

So basically, what Penelope is saying is----------->we want the states who already REFUSE to follow federal law (sanctuary cities/illegal aliens) in charge of the country; do I have that correctly?

Personally, I believe if the Left were to pull this off, they might get a rude awakening!

Follow the logic here---------> In California, because of the leftist rules, except for red areas, there is no reason for a Republican to vote. Basically for senator, their is always 2 Democrats, governor same thing. The Republicans just, stay home unless they have a chance in their district. The Left has sown up California by the election rules for any office. The top 2 vote getters are on the ballot, always meaning Democrats.

Now, if they put in this system, the Republicans have a reason to vote in dark blue areas of California and New York. Of course, it also means that Democrats would vote more in deep red areas also; but by their own admission, the red areas are SMALLER, just more plentiful.

I contend that IF this system was in place, Trump would have won the popular vote! Always remember-------------> where can't Republicans win? Big cities! So who stays home there? Republicans. They can not switch the state to red by voting, but they can bring the vote count much closer if they have a reason to vote!

It is no coincidence that the vote tally of California was by itself, the margin of victory in the popular vote. Give California Republicans a voice, along with those in New York, and it is my contention that the Democratic votes would stay basically close to static in those areas, but the Republican votes would rise dramatically!

The electoral college is the main reason that so many states NOW are ignored.

No state is ignored.

You could not be more wrong.

Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States

Agreed and Mi needs to do what PA did , get rid of the extreme gerrymandering.

 

[Penelope]

Time to get rid of the Electoral College:

Myths About Big Cities

As long as the Democratic Party promotes illegal voting and resists all attempts to secure legal voting across America .. it's a rotten idea.

View attachment 178653

View attachment 178651

Nobody asks me for ID when I use my credit card.

Depends on what you are buying and where.

Where do I have to show ID to use a credit card?

Me neither. For rental cars but I think they check your driving history.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A few facts:

* In the 2016 election, the center-right won the popular vote in votes cast for president, not the center-left.

* There are currently 33 states with Republican governors. Governors are elected by pure majority vote. That means a majority of people in 33 out of 50 states have elected Republican governors.

* Lincoln only got 39.9% of the vote in the 1860 election. If the other candidates had combined their vote behind one candidate, Lincoln would have lost in a landslide.

How are you calculating center/right center/left? lol, and why?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

This is another prime example of liberals' ignorance of their own country's founding and form of government. Being students of history, the framers sought to avoid pure majority rule, knowing that the tyranny of the majority can be every bit as oppressive and ruinous as the tyranny of a corrupt king.

If you abolished the electoral college, many states would be ignored, outright ignored, which means that the millions of people in those states would effectively lose their voice in choosing a president.

As has been pointed out, the argument about "big cities" is a strawman. The point is that states with larger populations would get most of the attention, while other states would get little attention, and while other states would get no attention.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

So basically, what Penelope is saying is----------->we want the states who already REFUSE to follow federal law (sanctuary cities/illegal aliens) in charge of the country; do I have that correctly?

Personally, I believe if the Left were to pull this off, they might get a rude awakening!

Follow the logic here---------> In California, because of the leftist rules, except for red areas, there is no reason for a Republican to vote. Basically for senator, their is always 2 Democrats, governor same thing. The Republicans just, stay home unless they have a chance in their district. The Left has sown up California by the election rules for any office. The top 2 vote getters are on the ballot, always meaning Democrats.

Now, if they put in this system, the Republicans have a reason to vote in dark blue areas of California and New York. Of course, it also means that Democrats would vote more in deep red areas also; but by their own admission, the red areas are SMALLER, just more plentiful.

I contend that IF this system was in place, Trump would have won the popular vote! Always remember-------------> where can't Republicans win? Big cities! So who stays home there? Republicans. They can not switch the state to red by voting, but they can bring the vote count much closer if they have a reason to vote!

It is no coincidence that the vote tally of California was by itself, the margin of victory in the popular vote. Give California Republicans a voice, along with those in New York, and it is my contention that the Democratic votes would stay basically close to static in those areas, but the Republican votes would rise dramatically!

The electoral college is the main reason that so many states NOW are ignored.

No state is ignored.

You could not be more wrong.

Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States

Agreed and Mi needs to do what PA did , get rid of the extreme gerrymandering.

Conservatives LOVE Gerrymandering because it's just one more move away from democratic government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Time to get rid of the Electoral College:

Myths About Big Cities

As long as the Democratic Party promotes illegal voting and resists all attempts to secure legal voting across America .. it's a rotten idea.

View attachment 178653

View attachment 178651

Nobody asks me for ID when I use my credit card.

Depends on what you are buying and where.

Where do I have to show ID to use a credit card?

Me neither. For rental cars but I think they check your driving history.

Let them issue a voter registration certificate at the time of registration and have people bring that to vote, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You see by the above that this is not about any principles other than the conservative desire to jigger the system in a way that they think gives their conservative minority disproportionate power.
did you just take a stand against women's suffrage? lolol, classic rightwing nuttery.

How about the coloreds? Want to bring back founding fathers' ideas on them?

You dumb ****! I described the bans against women and non-property owners voting as "hurdles", a commonly used reference to "a problem". By all means, all registered US citizens of proper age, sound mind and no felony convictions should be allowed one vote per election. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

You're touting 'founding fathes' ideas as if they were gods.

btw, if people living in urban areas need to have their right to vote diminished, shouldn't we stop electing governors by popular vote?

States have a right to elect their own governors and legisatures and to alot their alotment of electoral votes as they see fit.

So? Why does that make it right, according to your reasoning?

It means that any state can declare that ALL of its electoral votes will go to the candidate that won the popular vote in that state. Many states do this. Other states allow split voting by electors from their state.

It's undemocratic. If you are a Republican in California, or a Democrat in Texas, you go vote on election day,

and in all likelihood, poof! your vote ends up counting for ZERO in final tally.

 

[imawhosure]

By winner I think you are referring to Trump. I do not think he is a winner. Look at the mess he has created.

Uhhhhhh. . . . What "mess"? A growing, improving economy? Tax policy that is now enticing American companies to return to the U.S., and that is attracting trillions of dollars to America that was previously parked overseas? Putting hundreds of billions of dollars back into the pockets of middle-class families? Giving our companies a corporate income tax rate that has made them more competitive with Asian and European companies? The lowest number of unemployment claims in over 40 years? The lowest black and Hispanic unemployment rates that we've seen in decades? Exactly what "mess" are you talking about?

Cuts to all social programs, which you just might need one day, laissez -faire capitalism. Remains to be seen, the tax increased for the middle class will be eaten by increases in taxes of everything you buy and increase in prices due to tariffs. All I can see if stores laying off, of course you capitalist do not see that. All I can see if people going without healthcare and SNAP , but then again your free capitalist do not see that.

I don't understand some of you Left leaning people, I really do not.

Let me ask you something Penelope----------> What kind of car do you have? I am going to pay you 100 dollars for it, how is that!

No you say? So does that mean you won't sell me the car, or rather we have to negotiate a more equitable price for it?

You are all about ABSOLUTES.........it is either the way it is now, or the other way suggested, nothing in the middle. That is the ONLY reason you can make the case that you do! This whole debate about tariffs is NOT what is wanted, but what COULD happen without a fairer deal for America.

It is the same as--------------> there is a war, and then enemy is here.........we tell them if they do NOT move back to there, the war continues. What happens? The line is drawn somewhere in the middle, and the war ends.

I NEVER heard President Trump demand unconditional surrender on ANY trade deaL; just a renegotiation, or he will terminate the deal. What is wrong with that? Not to mention------>who is getting the better end of these deals today, and even if the other countries lost 50% of their advantage but kept the other 50%, would it NOT be in their best interests to sign the NEW deal and keep that remaining 50%, instead of having the deal terminated?

I just do not understand the Left sometimes, I really, and honestly, do not!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

This is another prime example of liberals' ignorance of their own country's founding and form of government. Being students of history, the framers sought to avoid pure majority rule, knowing that the tyranny of the majority can be every bit as oppressive and ruinous as the tyranny of a corrupt king.

If you abolished the electoral college, many states would be ignored, outright ignored, which means that the millions of people in those states would effectively lose their voice in choosing a president.

As has been pointed out, the argument about "big cities" is a strawman. The point is that states with larger populations would get most of the attention, while other states would get little attention, and while other states would get no attention.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

So basically, what Penelope is saying is----------->we want the states who already REFUSE to follow federal law (sanctuary cities/illegal aliens) in charge of the country; do I have that correctly?

Personally, I believe if the Left were to pull this off, they might get a rude awakening!

Follow the logic here---------> In California, because of the leftist rules, except for red areas, there is no reason for a Republican to vote. Basically for senator, their is always 2 Democrats, governor same thing. The Republicans just, stay home unless they have a chance in their district. The Left has sown up California by the election rules for any office. The top 2 vote getters are on the ballot, always meaning Democrats.

Now, if they put in this system, the Republicans have a reason to vote in dark blue areas of California and New York. Of course, it also means that Democrats would vote more in deep red areas also; but by their own admission, the red areas are SMALLER, just more plentiful.

I contend that IF this system was in place, Trump would have won the popular vote! Always remember-------------> where can't Republicans win? Big cities! So who stays home there? Republicans. They can not switch the state to red by voting, but they can bring the vote count much closer if they have a reason to vote!

It is no coincidence that the vote tally of California was by itself, the margin of victory in the popular vote. Give California Republicans a voice, along with those in New York, and it is my contention that the Democratic votes would stay basically close to static in those areas, but the Republican votes would rise dramatically!

The electoral college is the main reason that so many states NOW are ignored.

No state is ignored.

You could not be more wrong.

Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States

All states get TV campaign ads.

lol, that's not what you meant.

So TV ads would end in certain states if we went to the popular vote? Idiocy on your part.

Trump went only ONCE to California. Why? Because they knew that even if campaigning there could have gained them a million votes,

it still would have counted for zero. With a popular vote election, every vote gained there would have counted for something.

 

[imawhosure]

So basically, what Penelope is saying is----------->we want the states who already REFUSE to follow federal law (sanctuary cities/illegal aliens) in charge of the country; do I have that correctly?

Personally, I believe if the Left were to pull this off, they might get a rude awakening!

Follow the logic here---------> In California, because of the leftist rules, except for red areas, there is no reason for a Republican to vote. Basically for senator, their is always 2 Democrats, governor same thing. The Republicans just, stay home unless they have a chance in their district. The Left has sown up California by the election rules for any office. The top 2 vote getters are on the ballot, always meaning Democrats.

Now, if they put in this system, the Republicans have a reason to vote in dark blue areas of California and New York. Of course, it also means that Democrats would vote more in deep red areas also; but by their own admission, the red areas are SMALLER, just more plentiful.

I contend that IF this system was in place, Trump would have won the popular vote! Always remember-------------> where can't Republicans win? Big cities! So who stays home there? Republicans. They can not switch the state to red by voting, but they can bring the vote count much closer if they have a reason to vote!

It is no coincidence that the vote tally of California was by itself, the margin of victory in the popular vote. Give California Republicans a voice, along with those in New York, and it is my contention that the Democratic votes would stay basically close to static in those areas, but the Republican votes would rise dramatically!

The electoral college is the main reason that so many states NOW are ignored.

No state is ignored.

You could not be more wrong.

Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States

All states get TV campaign ads.

lol, that's not what you meant.

So TV ads would end in certain states if we went to the popular vote? Idiocy on your part.

Trump went only ONCE to California. Why? Because they knew that even if campaigning there could have gained them a million votes,

it still would have counted for zero. With a popular vote election, every vote gained there would have counted for something.

Again I ask----------> would the Left trade voter ID for elimination of the EC? That is a fair deal, is it not!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The electoral college is the main reason that so many states NOW are ignored.

No state is ignored.

You could not be more wrong.

Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States

All states get TV campaign ads.

lol, that's not what you meant.

So TV ads would end in certain states if we went to the popular vote? Idiocy on your part.

Trump went only ONCE to California. Why? Because they knew that even if campaigning there could have gained them a million votes,

it still would have counted for zero. With a popular vote election, every vote gained there would have counted for something.

Again I ask----------> would the Left trade voter ID for elimination of the EC? That is a fair deal, is it not!

I gave my voter ID opinion in post 112, what more do you want?

 

[Penelope]

As long as the Democratic Party promotes illegal voting and resists all attempts to secure legal voting across America .. it's a rotten idea.

View attachment 178653

View attachment 178651

Nobody asks me for ID when I use my credit card.

Depends on what you are buying and where.

Where do I have to show ID to use a credit card?

Me neither. For rental cars but I think they check your driving history.

Let them issue a voter registration certificate at the time of registration and have people bring that to vote, I don't have a problem with that.

We have both. They have closed many SOS offices and also closed polling places in MI, besides extreme gerrymandering.

 

[Penelope]

The electoral college is the main reason that so many states NOW are ignored.

No state is ignored.

You could not be more wrong.

Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States

All states get TV campaign ads.

lol, that's not what you meant.

So TV ads would end in certain states if we went to the popular vote? Idiocy on your part.

Trump went only ONCE to California. Why? Because they knew that even if campaigning there could have gained them a million votes,

it still would have counted for zero. With a popular vote election, every vote gained there would have counted for something.

Again I ask----------> would the Left trade voter ID for elimination of the EC? That is a fair deal, is it not!

The EC is going to go, and well it should. So worried the Pubs won't win the maj, you ought to be the last 2 GOP Presidents didn't.

 

[imawhosure]

No state is ignored.

You could not be more wrong.

Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States

All states get TV campaign ads.

lol, that's not what you meant.

So TV ads would end in certain states if we went to the popular vote? Idiocy on your part.

Trump went only ONCE to California. Why? Because they knew that even if campaigning there could have gained them a million votes,

it still would have counted for zero. With a popular vote election, every vote gained there would have counted for something.

Again I ask----------> would the Left trade voter ID for elimination of the EC? That is a fair deal, is it not!

I gave my voter ID opinion in post 112, what more do you want?

Then we can agree on this one. If they issue voter ID along with cutting the voting time down to 3 days, a Friday, (national holiday) Saturday, and a Sunday, I could support a removal of the EC.