Dems hate voter suppression but want to deprive entire states of their right to vote via the compact

[Rustic]

Lol
Na, not really
Rural America would lose every single presidential election... because the numbers just are not there. Fact

Fact: there are rural Americans in every state. Do rural CA or NY voters now have a meaningful voice? Getting rid of the winner take all EC would give them one.

That why this is supposed to be an republic, Founding fathers were genius.

They knew without the electoral college urban America would just roll over rural America.
Like I said the numbers are not there… Not even close

Instead of rural America having an outsized voice and overruling millions of voters from other regions?

Lol
A popularity contest makes no sense when it comes to important policy

 

[Rustic]

More bizarro world shit from Democrats.
“Republicans are assholes for suppressing black voters...but we think it’s okay to suppress an entire state”
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Nothing would be suppressed. Every vote would count equally. The EC would simply reflect the will of the majority of the country rather than just the majority of their state.

A pure popular vote is mob rule... fact

Or just an election. Like every other election you cast your vote in.

Lol
Like I said, The founding fathers were genius… They knew without the electoral college rural America would have no say in presidential elections. Fact

LOL...They aren't forced to vote for the loser, dope.

Lol
That’s why the founding fathers envisioned an republic, not a shit eating democracy.

 

[Rustic]

More bizarro world shit from Democrats.
“Republicans are assholes for suppressing black voters...but we think it’s okay to suppress an entire state”
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

It is not suppressing the entire state, some of the state will have voted for the winner of the popular vote.

I would say that our current system of winner take all for EC votes does just as much to suppress votes. Think about it, in your state your vote and that of 4.4 million other people did not count at all towards your states EV votes.

why do you keep posting that stupid meme every time I talk about the winner take all system. I am not talking about getting rid of the EC.

are you really this fucking stupid...no wait...do not answer.

Lol
You seem confused

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And I thought you were a Conservative. Silly me

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

I never said it should count as more. The EC just makes it equal.

Actually, the EC does not make it equal, the smaller the state the more their vote counts. A vote in Wyoming counts like 3 times a vote in Texas.

But I am not against the EC, I am against the Winner Take All system.

Well then. Let’s Bernie the shit out of this system and make every state even. You get one EC per state.

You are normally not this stupid, are you having a bad day?

Under a system that I am advocating, the 4 million people that vote for Trump in Cali would not have thrown away their votes, some of those EC votes would have went to Trump instead of 100% going to Hillary.

 

[Rustic]

Why not by county? Let’s get as close to local control as possible. Divide a states EC up by the number of counties and apportion then that way.

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

So a rancher in Montana that owns 1000 acres should get, how many votes in your estimation?

Lol
The old saying, don’t fix it if it ain’t broke…

 

[Rustic]

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

So a rancher in Montana that owns 1000 acres should get, how many votes in your estimation?

Lol
The old saying, don’t fix it if it ain’t broke…

And by the way thousand acres ain’t shit in Montana… lol

 

[Rustic]

Yeah they get an equal vote. WTF do I care you chose to live with 530 people. That’s not my problem.

And I thought you were a Conservative. Silly me

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

I never said it should count as more. The EC just makes it equal.

Actually, the EC does not make it equal, the smaller the state the more their vote counts. A vote in Wyoming counts like 3 times a vote in Texas.

But I am not against the EC, I am against the Winner Take All system.

Lol
You seem confused

 

[Rustic]

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

I never said it should count as more. The EC just makes it equal.

Actually, the EC does not make it equal, the smaller the state the more their vote counts. A vote in Wyoming counts like 3 times a vote in Texas.

But I am not against the EC, I am against the Winner Take All system.

Well then. Let’s Bernie the shit out of this system and make every state even. You get one EC per state.

You are normally not this stupid, are you having a bad day?

Under a system that I am advocating, the 4 million people that vote for Trump in Cali would not have thrown away their votes, some of those EC votes would have went to Trump instead of 100% going to Hillary.

Lol
It doesn’t matter if you keep it the way it should be, the electoral college is just fine the way it is

 

[Harpy Eagle]

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

So a rancher in Montana that owns 1000 acres should get, how many votes in your estimation?

Lol
The old saying, don’t fix it if it ain’t broke…

That is the saying of losers. People that follow that rule never make anything better. We would still be driving Model Ts, they were not broken.

it is the saying for those with no vision and no drive.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And I thought you were a Conservative. Silly me

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

I never said it should count as more. The EC just makes it equal.

Actually, the EC does not make it equal, the smaller the state the more their vote counts. A vote in Wyoming counts like 3 times a vote in Texas.

But I am not against the EC, I am against the Winner Take All system.

Lol
You seem confused

not in the least. The EC does not have to be winner take all.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Lol
Na, not really
Rural America would lose every single presidential election... because the numbers just are not there. Fact

Fact: there are rural Americans in every state. Do rural CA or NY voters now have a meaningful voice? Getting rid of the winner take all EC would give them one.

That why this is supposed to be an republic, Founding fathers were genius.

They knew without the electoral college urban America would just roll over rural America.
Like I said the numbers are not there… Not even close

Instead of rural America having an outsized voice and overruling millions of voters from other regions?

Lol
A popularity contest makes no sense when it comes to important policy

Sure it does. "Govt of the people, by the people, for the people."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

So a rancher in Montana that owns 1000 acres should get, how many votes in your estimation?

Lol
The old saying, don’t fix it if it ain’t broke…

Answer the question.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

I never said it should count as more. The EC just makes it equal.

Actually, the EC does not make it equal, the smaller the state the more their vote counts. A vote in Wyoming counts like 3 times a vote in Texas.

But I am not against the EC, I am against the Winner Take All system.

Well then. Let’s Bernie the shit out of this system and make every state even. You get one EC per state.

You are normally not this stupid, are you having a bad day?

Under a system that I am advocating, the 4 million people that vote for Trump in Cali would not have thrown away their votes, some of those EC votes would have went to Trump instead of 100% going to Hillary.

So basically a more complicated version of the EC. How does this change anything?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

So a rancher in Montana that owns 1000 acres should get, how many votes in your estimation?

Lol
The old saying, don’t fix it if it ain’t broke…

That is the saying of losers. People that follow that rule never make anything better. We would still be driving Model Ts, they were not broken.

it is the saying for those with no vision and no drive.

The only people bitching about it are democrats. Proportional EC votes would be based on what? You get exactly the number of EC's based on your vote totals? So a state with 3 EC's get's them divided by 51.9% to the winner and the rest to the loser?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Lol
Na, not really
Rural America would lose every single presidential election... because the numbers just are not there. Fact

Fact: there are rural Americans in every state. Do rural CA or NY voters now have a meaningful voice? Getting rid of the winner take all EC would give them one.

That why this is supposed to be an republic, Founding fathers were genius.

They knew without the electoral college urban America would just roll over rural America.
Like I said the numbers are not there… Not even close

Instead of rural America having an outsized voice and overruling millions of voters from other regions?

Lol
A popularity contest makes no sense when it comes to important policy

Sure it does. "Govt of the people, by the people, for the people."

Which people? The ones not in your state?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

I never said it should count as more. The EC just makes it equal.

Actually, the EC does not make it equal, the smaller the state the more their vote counts. A vote in Wyoming counts like 3 times a vote in Texas.

But I am not against the EC, I am against the Winner Take All system.

Lol
You seem confused

not in the least. The EC does not have to be winner take all.

At some point you have to expand beyond the one vote democracy system in order to keep a republic.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

I never said it should count as more. The EC just makes it equal.

Actually, the EC does not make it equal, the smaller the state the more their vote counts. A vote in Wyoming counts like 3 times a vote in Texas.

But I am not against the EC, I am against the Winner Take All system.

Well then. Let’s Bernie the shit out of this system and make every state even. You get one EC per state.

You are normally not this stupid, are you having a bad day?

Under a system that I am advocating, the 4 million people that vote for Trump in Cali would not have thrown away their votes, some of those EC votes would have went to Trump instead of 100% going to Hillary.

So basically a more complicated version of the EC. How does this change anything?

It makes more votes count. Right now in 2/3 of the states if you vote for the "wrong" party you are throwing your vote away as the candidate has no chance to win and your vote means nothing.

Take Illinois for an example. Hillary only won 60% of the congressional districts, but she got 100% of the EC votes. The votes of the other 40% were wasted as Trump had no chance to win the state.

In NY she won 66% of the districts but got 100% of the vote and Trump never had a chance to win, thus all those Trump votes were wasted.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

So a rancher in Montana that owns 1000 acres should get, how many votes in your estimation?

Lol
The old saying, don’t fix it if it ain’t broke…

That is the saying of losers. People that follow that rule never make anything better. We would still be driving Model Ts, they were not broken.

it is the saying for those with no vision and no drive.

The only people bitching about it are democrats. Proportional EC votes would be based on what? You get exactly the number of EC's based on your vote totals? So a state with 3 EC's get's them divided by 51.9% to the winner and the rest to the loser?

It is done by Congressional District with the overall winner getting 2 on top of what districts they won.

A state with only 3 ECs only has one Congressional District, thus the winner of the state gets them all of course.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

So a rancher in Montana that owns 1000 acres should get, how many votes in your estimation?

Lol
The old saying, don’t fix it if it ain’t broke…

That is the saying of losers. People that follow that rule never make anything better. We would still be driving Model Ts, they were not broken.

it is the saying for those with no vision and no drive.

The only people bitching about it are democrats. Proportional EC votes would be based on what? You get exactly the number of EC's based on your vote totals? So a state with 3 EC's get's them divided by 51.9% to the winner and the rest to the loser?

It is done by Congressional District with the overall winner getting 2 on top of what districts they won.

A state with only 3 ECs only has one Congressional District, thus the winner of the state gets them all of course.

So have you worked out the math of how that would have effected the 2016 election? How would those numbers have worked?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So a rancher in Montana that owns 1000 acres should get, how many votes in your estimation?

Lol
The old saying, don’t fix it if it ain’t broke…

That is the saying of losers. People that follow that rule never make anything better. We would still be driving Model Ts, they were not broken.

it is the saying for those with no vision and no drive.

The only people bitching about it are democrats. Proportional EC votes would be based on what? You get exactly the number of EC's based on your vote totals? So a state with 3 EC's get's them divided by 51.9% to the winner and the rest to the loser?

It is done by Congressional District with the overall winner getting 2 on top of what districts they won.

A state with only 3 ECs only has one Congressional District, thus the winner of the state gets them all of course.

So have you worked out the math of how that would have effected the 2016 election? How would those numbers have worked?

No, I have not done it for every state. I do not care about a single election.