How Small of a Minority could Win the Electoral College?

[Mick]

You sure are nasty when you're admitting you are wrong.

But not nearly as nasty as all that left wing feces and needles in the streets of your left wing cities. Or as nasty as your pandering to the policies that created it. Facts suck, don't they?

It has to do with what people pay to live here. Million dollar homes was an example of that cost. You could also translate that into housing cost of all kinds. People simply have to pay more to live in the greatest state in the union.

And dirt poor left wingers living on the streets, defecating on the sidewalks, and unable to meet the necessities of life is what you get from these policies. And if having slums that rival the worst in the world makes California "the greatest state in the union" our country is f-cked. Fortunately, people actually have jobs, don't live on welfare, have very few homeless, and no feces on the streets. They are called red states.

THE PEOPLE of California. Going full retard with this bogus bit of disassembling does not change the fact.

It's not "THE PEOPLE". It's the one percenters. They don't represent California's poverty, homeless, and destitute who make up millions of the people in the state. That left wing trash is "THE PEOPLE" in that shithole. The one percenters trend Republican over the general population. The homeless and welfare moochers? Trend democrat. Facts matter.

Yet it's THE PEOPLE of California making up for the shortfalls in those budgets for red state hillbillies and wastrels while they pay for their own as well.

They don't have "budget shortfalls" in red states my low IQ left winger.

The top five most fiscally solvent states are Nebraska (#1), South Dakota (#2), Tennessee (#3), Florida (#4), and Oklahoma (#5).

The bottom five states in terms of fiscal solvency are Kentucky (#46), Massachusetts (#47), New Jersey (#48), Connecticut (#49), and Illinois (#50).

https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings

We'll explain this to you again because your low IQ can't figure it out. Red states are more financially sound. And they do it by running with lower taxes. How? They don't have ridiculous welfare systems that reward the lazy. They don't pander social services to help criminal illegal aliens. People in red states work. They don't live in poverty. They don't commit crime. They are taxed lightly which increases quality of life. And government services are only for the necessities. Excess and abuses are not tolerated. There aren't millions of homeless [Unwelcome language removed] on the streets, poverty stricken slums, etc.


You're dismissed to go clean up shit in your streets by your disgusting part of the electorate.

Lulz

 

[middleview]

Absolutely it does. The number of electoral votes is reflected by the total number of U.S. representatives and senators a state has. The two are directly intertwined.....and ONCE AGAIN was a compromise between large states and small states to give large states more say but once again to assure small states have A say. Educate yourself, pea brain:

https://verdict.justia.com/2016/12/05/electoral-college-works-fine-just

Better yet, take a good look at this map:

This is called "broad appeal". Any questions?

Did you get your crayons out just for me?

Yes, I do have a question....is the president elected based on acreage or ultimately the will of the voters?

I'm a citizen of the United States...and should have equal say on electing the president...not less than someone who lives in a less populated state.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Tyranny? Giving them a voice in their own nation is Tyranny?

Wow

they would have a voice in a direct popular vote for president.

 

[middleview]

Except in 2012, 2008, 2004, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980.....so on and so forth. That is an incredible "tyranny" the minority has there. Do you think before you post or are you just set on just making yourself look dumb?

did you forget the topic? The electoral college and the override of the popular vote in 2016.

 

[middleview]

Not entirely true. They go to places like New Hampshire and Iowa, too. If it was a straight popular vote you would never see a candidate campaigning outside of a few major cities. New Hampshire and Iowa would never see campaigning.

not entirely? Those states see the candidate in the primaries. The general election is mainly in a few battleground states.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Not entirely true. They go to places like New Hampshire and Iowa, too. If it was a straight popular vote you would never see a candidate campaigning outside of a few major cities. New Hampshire and Iowa would never see campaigning.

They don't campaign in Iowa or New Hampshire because of the general election. They campaign there during the primary. Primaries would still be happening with a direct popular vote.

 

[kaz]

A tyranny of the minority is not any better.

That makes no sense. What the hell does that even mean in our system? Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just parroting another talking point from leftist talking heads on fake news.

We have two houses. You need both the House and Senate to pass legislation. Our system was designed so you need the majority of people (House) AND States (Senate) to enact laws.

That you want to eliminate the requirement for the majority of States to pass legislation enables tyranny of the majority. No one said anything about eliminating the ability of the House to block the majority of the States from enabling legislation. There is no tyranny of the minority. Like everything else you pull out of your ass, it stinks. Learn what the hell you're talking about, parrot.

Again ...

Now. We require BOTH the majority of the people (House) AND States (Senate).

You want ONLY the tyranny of the majority.

Obamacareforever: But duh, dar, then the Majority of the States could pass legislation.

No, they can't. No one said anything about eliminating the House. Have you ever taken a civics class and learned how our system works?

Unfricking believable that half the country (Democrats) don't know shit about how the government they spend all day on message boards posting about even works

 

[reason10]

Cool. Then groups in Calif Mass and NY could set up a program where millions of the excessive Dem voters in those states take up temporary legal residence in those sparely populated red states Then just take the popular vote from the locals by sheer numbers and thus take the electoral college vote as well.

Doesn't that sound like great plan too ?

That's kind of what happened in the last election. And it didn't work, except in California, where those Democrat voters were in this country illegally.

 

[ObamacareForever]

That makes no sense. What the hell does that even mean in our system? Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just parroting another talking point from leftist talking heads on fake news.

We have two houses. You need both the House and Senate to pass legislation. Our system was designed so you need the majority of people (House) AND States (Senate) to enact laws.

That you want to eliminate the requirement for the majority of States to pass legislation enables tyranny of the majority. No one said anything about eliminating the ability of the House to block the majority of the States from enabling legislation. There is no tyranny of the minority. Like everything else you pull out of your ass, it stinks. Learn what the hell you're talking about, parrot.

Again ...

Now. We require BOTH the majority of the people (House) AND States (Senate).

You want ONLY the tyranny of the majority.

Obamacareforever: But duh, dar, then the Majority of the States could pass legislation.

No, they can't. No one said anything about eliminating the House. Have you ever taken a civics class and learned how our system works?

Unfricking believable that half the country (Democrats) don't know shit about how the government they spend all day on message boards posting about even works

States don't have interests. The people in those in states have interests. And they are represented in a direct popular vote.

 

[kaz]

States don't have interests. The people in those in states have interests. And they are represented in a direct popular vote.

Learn something about your country and how our government is set up and why, son. Come back when you have some content. I'm not interested in teaching you high school civics.

1) You didn't show shit to defend your moronic statement that our country is based on "tyranny of the majority" because of course it's not. The minority can't do crap if they are opposed by the majority. Either the majority of States OR the majority of the people can stop legislation.

2) Why did the Founding Fathers set up the system with the House and Senate that way? You obviously don't know. Pick up a book.

Again, you're completely not addressing how our country is set up or why. If you learn to grasp that and disagree with it and can make your arguments in terms of how our country actually works, what you disagree with, and why, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. But if you just want to cry that the majority can't vote you other people's shit, then pass.

High School civics. Start there. You obviously don't know anything about it

 

[kaz]

This has got to be the most pathetic and whiny post of all time.

HILLARY LOST THE FCKING ELECTION IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

And America is not going to get rid of the Electoral College.

Get over yourself, whiny bee itch.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

Obamacareforever: I'm in!

As demonstrated by his user name ...

 

[ObamacareForever]

Learn something about your country and how our government is set up and why, son. Come back when you have some content. I'm not interested in teaching you high school civics.

I know why it was set up that way, and it was dumb to begin with. It doesn't mean it can't be changed.

1) You didn't show shit to defend your moronic statement that our country is based on "tyranny of the majority" because of course it's not. The minority can't do crap if they are opposed by the majority. Either the majority of States OR the majority of the people can stop legislation.[/QUOTE]
Except control the executive branch.

2) Why did the Founding Fathers set up the system with the House and Senate that way? You obviously don't know. Pick up a book.

They thought rural americans votes were more valuable than urban ones. It was dumb to begin with.

Again, you're completely not addressing how our country is set up or why. If you learn to grasp that and disagree with it and can make your arguments in terms of how our country actually works, what you disagree with, and why, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. But if you just want to cry that the majority can't vote you other people's shit, then pass.

Our country also set up a system for amending the constitution. Let's do that to address the changes our country has gone through in the past 250 years. Instead of forever pretending its 1776.

 

[kaz]

I know why it was set up that way, and it was dumb to begin with. It doesn't mean it can't be changed.

1) You didn't show shit to defend your moronic statement that our country is based on "tyranny of the majority" because of course it's not. The minority can't do crap if they are opposed by the majority. Either the majority of States OR the majority of the people can stop legislation.
Except control the executive branch.

They thought rural americans votes were more valuable than urban ones. It was dumb to begin with.

Our country also set up a system for amending the constitution. Let's do that to address the changes our country has gone through in the past 250 years. Instead of forever pretending its 1776.

Edited

You don't have to agree with how the founding fathers set up the country, but if you want to make credible arguments, son, you need to be able to present your arguments in terms of how they set it up and why.

All you know is what Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow and Chris Cuomo told you to think.

I'm not debating that, edited.

 

[middleview]

That's kind of what happened in the last election. And it didn't work, except in California, where those Democrat voters were in this country illegally.

Why isn't Trump working on the problem of illegal immigrants voting? Could it be due to the fact that it isn't happening?

 

[reason10]

Why isn't Trump working on the problem of illegal immigrants voting? Could it be due to the fact that it isn't happening?

Probably because the House is stonewalling him from enforcing the law. And the Clinton appointed judges are keeping him from enforcing the law.

There's no way Democrats could win California without illegal aliens. That place is the Haiti of America. A real shithole.

 

[middleview]

Edited

You don't have to agree with how the founding fathers set up the country, but if you want to make credible arguments, son, you need to be able to present your arguments in terms of how they set it up and why.

All you know is what Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow and Chris Cuomo told you to think.

I'm not debating that, edited.

You guys keep drifting off the topic. The EC is obsolete. Presidential campaigns happen in a few states...PA, Ohio, Va, Florida....Why no campaign stops in Montana? None in Kansas or Kentucky? Why are all those small stated ignored? Why are California, Texas and New York ignored? Here is a map showing campaign events...not fund raisers...

 

[middleview]

Probably because the House is stonewalling him from enforcing the law. And the Clinton appointed judges are keeping him from enforcing the law.

There's no way Democrats could win California without illegal aliens. That place is the Haiti of America. A real shithole.

The last time a republican won California was in 1988..

Clearly it isn't the shithole you think it is...otherwise people would move out. Instead so many people are moving in that the price of a home is unaffordable to so many...

I lived there for years. Over crowded? Yup. Downtown SF and LA trashy in places? Yup.
What city in the US doesn't have a problem with homeless people?

 

[Emily]

they would have a voice in a direct popular vote for president.

That voice would be overwhelmed by that of two metropolitan regions.

kaz is carrying the real weight here but I'm going to offer a personal perspective that might have some relevance...

Where we live, if in the next presidential election the Democrats ticket was Josef Stalin/Daisy Duck, our electors would be voting for Josef Stalin & Daisy Duck. That's not an exaggeration or an attempt at humor; it's a literal truth.

How I vote for the POTUS will make no difference even if I vote for one of the two major parties. None. Only one vote I ever cast since coming here 30 years ago, for a (D) who defeated an (R) incumbent in a exceptionally close race, ever had any degree of impact.

So going to a national popular vote for give me more of a voice, serve my personal interests. I oppose it anyway and their's nothing self-serving about it. It's for the good of the country. Those people all across the vast middle of America who farm for us all and mine for us all and do much that benefits all of us should have a voice. Greater LA and the NYC metro region would effectively silence it for the foreseeable future.

Regional differences are still real in our large country. Maybe that will change one day but it hasn't. If the people are going to have a voice, ALL the people need to be heard. The EC was and remains the best way devised of doing that. Do away with it, and my little voice might count a tiny bit more but millions would be effectively silenced when it comes to choosing the president.

Doing that is wrong.

Doing that for the purely partisan reason behind any advocacy for it is vile.

 

[ObamacareForever]

That voice would be overwhelmed by that of two metropolitan regions.

kaz is carrying the real weight here but I'm going to offer a personal perspective that might have some relevance...

Where we live, if in the next presidential election the Democrats ticket was Josef Stalin/Daisy Duck, our electors would be voting for Josef Stalin & Daisy Duck. That's not an exaggeration or an attempt at humor; it's a literal truth.

How I vote for the POTUS will make no difference even if I vote for one of the two major parties. None. Only one vote I ever cast since coming here 30 years ago, for a (D) who defeated an (R) incumbent in a exceptionally close race, ever had any degree of impact.

So going to a national popular vote for give me more of a voice, serve my personal interests. I oppose it anyway and their's nothing self-serving about it. It's for the good of the country. Those people all across the vast middle of America who farm for us all and mine for us all and do much that benefits all of us should have a voice. Greater LA and the NYC metro region would effectively silence it for the foreseeable future.

Regional differences are still real in our large country. Maybe that will change one day but it hasn't. If the people are going to have a voice, ALL the people need to be heard. The EC was and remains the best way devised of doing that. Do away with it, and my little voice might count a tiny bit more but millions would be effectively silenced when it comes to choosing the president.

Doing that is wrong.

Doing that for the purely partisan reason behind any advocacy for it is vile.

It is asisine to believe that rural americans are more important than urban-dwelling ones. Their votes are all valued the same in a direct popular vote. Candidates would court them equally. They don't do that now, They spend all their time in Ohio and Florida.

 

[Emily]

It is asisine to believe that rural americans are more important than urban-dwelling ones. Their votes are all valued the same in a direct popular vote. Candidates would court them equally. They don't do that now, They spend all their time in Ohio and Florida.

Didn't say any one group of Americans was more important than another. Said that ALL regions of the country should have a voice.
What part of Greater LA and the NYC metro region would effectively silence the rest of the country in presidential elections for the foreseeable future are y'all not getting? You know it's true. You know what the result would be. Wish you'd all stop defending your partisanship with disingenuous appeals to fairness.