New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The popular vote isn't a thing

kaz

Small l libertarian
There isn't one election in this country, there are 50 elections. Adding the results of those elections together and declaring them the winner is like going to the point differential between NFL teams and declaring the largest point spread the winner.

1) Everyone knows who is winning their State and by how much. People do and don't show up to vote based on how the election in their State is doing, not on how the national election is going. So there is no logical basis to say that Hillary won some sort of fake point spread battle and that means anything. Many millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, etc. have no incentive to show up for example.

2) The founders were right that small States should have some level of protection from big ones. Big ones today are mostly socialist. They are malevolent to small States. All the more reason they should have more protection

3) Every State has slightly different voting rules, machines, processes, requirements. Again, to claim you can add point spreads together and draw a conclusion is ridiculous. That California can register millions of illegal aliens and allow them to vote while other States don't doesn't make us more "democratic"

4) We aren't a Democracy, we are a Republic. The Feds were to just provide for a national defense and a few other things. There is no reason to have a "Democracy" for a limited function government. The States should control it. And most government should be local. Local government should be democratic
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
There isn't one election in this country, there are 50 elections. Adding the results of those elections together and declaring them the winner is like going to the point differential between NFL teams and declaring the largest point spread the winner.

1) Everyone knows who is winning their State and by how much. People do and don't show up to vote based on how the election in their State is doing, not on how the national election is going. So there is no logical basis to say that Hillary won some sort of fake point spread battle and that means anything. Many millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, etc. have no incentive to show up for example.

2) The founders were right that small States should have some level of protection from big ones. Big ones today are mostly socialist. They are malevolent to small States. All the more reason they should have more protection

3) Every State has slightly different voting rules, machines, processes, requirements. Again, to claim you can add point spreads together and draw a conclusion is ridiculous. That California can register millions of illegal aliens and allow them to vote while other States don't doesn't make us more "democratic"

4) We aren't a Democracy, we are a Republic. The Feds were to just provide for a national defense and a few other things. There is no reason to have a "Democracy" for a limited function government. The States should control it. And most government should be local. Local government should be democratic
The states that decided this election were Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The campaigns are run in battleground states. Not the small states. The Electoral College creates "one party states"....republicans in California or New York and democrats in Texas don't count in presidential elections...so the EC discourages turnout.

We are a republic because we elect representatives to the House to vote on legislation instead of having elections to do it. The small states are protected by their senators...they get the same representation in the Senate as every other state...See how that works?

Meanwhile, the president is not the president of individual states. He is the president of the nation. That is why the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE should and will elect him.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
The states that decided this election were Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The campaigns are run in battleground states. Not the small states. The Electoral College creates "one party states"....republicans in California or New York and democrats in Texas don't count in presidential elections...so the EC discourages turnout.

We are a republic because we elect representatives to the House to vote on legislation instead of having elections to do it. The small states are protected by their senators...they get the same representation in the Senate as every other state...See how that works?

Meanwhile, the president is not the president of individual states. He is the president of the nation. That is why the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE should and will elect him.
Poor baby lost his pacifier
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
The states that decided this election were Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The campaigns are run in battleground states. Not the small states. The Electoral College creates "one party states"....republicans in California or New York and democrats in Texas don't count in presidential elections...so the EC discourages turnout.

We are a republic because we elect representatives to the House to vote on legislation instead of having elections to do it. The small states are protected by their senators...they get the same representation in the Senate as every other state...See how that works?

Meanwhile, the president is not the president of individual states. He is the president of the nation. That is why the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE should and will elect him.

We're not a union of States?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
There isn't one election in this country, there are 50 elections. Adding the results of those elections together and declaring them the winner is like going to the point differential between NFL teams and declaring the largest point spread the winner.

1) Everyone knows who is winning their State and by how much. People do and don't show up to vote based on how the election in their State is doing, not on how the national election is going. So there is no logical basis to say that Hillary won some sort of fake point spread battle and that means anything. Many millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, etc. have no incentive to show up for example.

2) The founders were right that small States should have some level of protection from big ones. Big ones today are mostly socialist. They are malevolent to small States. All the more reason they should have more protection

3) Every State has slightly different voting rules, machines, processes, requirements. Again, to claim you can add point spreads together and draw a conclusion is ridiculous. That California can register millions of illegal aliens and allow them to vote while other States don't doesn't make us more "democratic"

4) We aren't a Democracy, we are a Republic. The Feds were to just provide for a national defense and a few other things. There is no reason to have a "Democracy" for a limited function government. The States should control it. And most government should be local. Local government should be democratic
1. Exactly the reason for a national popular vote.
2. Bullshit. For one thing you can look at voter registrations. They have not gone up in a manner that would support a sudden registration of millions of voters in the past decade.
You can go all the way back to Reagan being governor and see the gradual increase in the population. Now look at the number of voters for republicans vs democrats....both show a gradual increase. Done with that? Now figure out how many vote fraud cases there have been...certainly not enough to support the accusation that millions are illegal votes.
 

Colorforms

Senator
There isn't one election in this country, there are 50 elections. Adding the results of those elections together and declaring them the winner is like going to the point differential between NFL teams and declaring the largest point spread the winner.

1) Everyone knows who is winning their State and by how much. People do and don't show up to vote based on how the election in their State is doing, not on how the national election is going. So there is no logical basis to say that Hillary won some sort of fake point spread battle and that means anything. Many millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, etc. have no incentive to show up for example.

2) The founders were right that small States should have some level of protection from big ones. Big ones today are mostly socialist. They are malevolent to small States. All the more reason they should have more protection

3) Every State has slightly different voting rules, machines, processes, requirements. Again, to claim you can add point spreads together and draw a conclusion is ridiculous. That California can register millions of illegal aliens and allow them to vote while other States don't doesn't make us more "democratic"

4) We aren't a Democracy, we are a Republic. The Feds were to just provide for a national defense and a few other things. There is no reason to have a "Democracy" for a limited function government. The States should control it. And most government should be local. Local government should be democratic
Evers in Wisconsin wants to enact motor voter, like they have in California and New York so that anyone with a driver's license is automatically eligible to vote. Democrats seem to love the idea of just opening up voting to everyone and anyone without any kind of controls.
 

reason10

Mayor
The states that decided this election were Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The campaigns are run in battleground states. Not the small states. The Electoral College creates "one party states"....republicans in California or New York and democrats in Texas don't count in presidential elections...so the EC discourages turnout.

We are a republic because we elect representatives to the House to vote on legislation instead of having elections to do it. The small states are protected by their senators...they get the same representation in the Senate as every other state...See how that works?

Meanwhile, the president is not the president of individual states. He is the president of the nation. That is why the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE should and will elect him.
The national Electoral College (which you [Unwelcome language removed] crybaby snowflakes had no [Unwelcome language removed] problem with when Democrats were winning) is what CONSTITUTIONALLY elects a president and has done so from the very beginning.

QUIT YOUR [Unwelcome language removed] WHINING.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
The states that decided this election were Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The campaigns are run in battleground states. Not the small states. The Electoral College creates "one party states"....republicans in California or New York and democrats in Texas don't count in presidential elections...so the EC discourages turnout.

We are a republic because we elect representatives to the House to vote on legislation instead of having elections to do it. The small states are protected by their senators...they get the same representation in the Senate as every other state...See how that works?

Meanwhile, the president is not the president of individual states. He is the president of the nation. That is why the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE should and will elect him.
neither had vote D for POTUS in like a decade
there's 3.5 million more registered voters than living adults
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The national Electoral College (which you [Unwelcome language removed] crybaby snowflakes had no [Unwelcome language removed] problem with when Democrats were winning) is what CONSTITUTIONALLY elects a president and has done so from the very beginning.

QUIT YOUR [Unwelcome language removed] WHINING.
Four times in our history has the popular vote been overridden by the EC....two in the last 20 years. The constitution changes. It changed to allow women and minorities to vote. Did you have a problem with that? It changed to outlaw alcohol and then changed to make it legal again.. Did you think the EC is the same process as it was in the first election? It isn't.

Get used to change.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Evers in Wisconsin wants to enact motor voter, like they have in California and New York so that anyone with a driver's license is automatically eligible to vote. Democrats seem to love the idea of just opening up voting to everyone and anyone without any kind of controls.
Do a little research would you? A diver's license for a non-citizen is different from a citizen's license...by a lot.
 

redtide

Mayor
The states that decided this election were Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The campaigns are run in battleground states. Not the small states. The Electoral College creates "one party states"....republicans in California or New York and democrats in Texas don't count in presidential elections...so the EC discourages turnout.

We are a republic because we elect representatives to the House to vote on legislation instead of having elections to do it. The small states are protected by their senators...they get the same representation in the Senate as every other state...See how that works?

Meanwhile, the president is not the president of individual states. He is the president of the nation. That is why the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE should and will elect him.
The electoral college does not create one party states gerrymandering does along with theft by the left to purchase the votes of freeloaders
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The electoral college does not create one party states gerrymandering does along with theft by the left to purchase the votes of freeloaders
The Electoral college has nothing at all to do with gerry mandering....showing once again you don't know wtf you are talking about.
 
Top