Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It used to be only property owners were authorized to vote.
but why is it fair to limit the worth of 1 man's vote who just happens to live in a city, and magnify 1 man's vote who lives in the suburbs or country? it makes no sense?Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.Dear Care4all
We could change it where the winner has to get majority of BOTH electoral and popular votes.
Then we could face a runoff in December by ALL people not just Electors.
Wouldn't that be a media circus?
Would the media back this so they can make even more money off more hype that never ends?
No Missouri_Mike
Where do you get that I am not RELIEVED that Trump won because of the Electoral System this time?
If a candidate has to win BOTH votes that INCLUDES the Electoral College, it doesn't reject it at ALL!!!
Are you trying to clarify that if there is a runoff, we should use the same system again?
And have ALL the people vote for just those two candidates,
and then use the Electoral system again for the runoff?
Okay, SURE! Whatever it takes to ensure the Winner wins
BOTH the Popular and Electoral Vote so we don't have this nonsense afterward.
Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!
"On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine - which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!
We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton."
Electoral College Electors: Electoral College Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19
More hypocrisy.
And we have that taken care of with our Senators, a state with 39 million has 2 senators and a state with 530,000 has 2 senators.....but our President should be the vote of the populous.but why is it fair to limit the worth of 1 man's vote who just happens to live in a city, and magnify 1 man's vote who lives in the suburbs or country? it makes no sense?Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.
No Missouri_Mike
Where do you get that I am not RELIEVED that Trump won because of the Electoral System this time?
If a candidate has to win BOTH votes that INCLUDES the Electoral College, it doesn't reject it at ALL!!!
Are you trying to clarify that if there is a runoff, we should use the same system again?
And have ALL the people vote for just those two candidates,
and then use the Electoral system again for the runoff?
Okay, SURE! Whatever it takes to ensure the Winner wins
BOTH the Popular and Electoral Vote so we don't have this nonsense afterward.
Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!
It's called Federalism. States have power, regardless of their size or population density.
It's a bunch of crap. Desperate fragile snowflakes need a safe quiet room to cry in."On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine - which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!
We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton."
Electoral College Electors: Electoral College Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19
More hypocrisy.
Basic arrogance on the part of the left.
It is so typical.
If they actually pulled this off...I think there would be a civil war.
One flaw in the plan..... The House of Representatives has to certify and accept the college findings, they could refuse and chose Trump still.Oh dear. That's all we need. Some crisis where the new argument will be about voter fraud by Electors!
The truth is that it's legal, they COULD do it. It wouldn't be smart but they could.
I don't want to change it now, or for this election....the rules were set already.... but for future presidential elections, it should change to a democratic popular vote, like ALL OTHER elected officials.
No it should not. If it did the small States would have no voice and only California New York and the large cities would matter.I don't want to change it now, or for this election....the rules were set already.... but for future presidential elections, it should change to a democratic popular vote, like ALL OTHER elected officials.
Nope. This crazy crap gained steam with the 17th Amendment. Now they are beholden to whoever hands them cash. Clinton owes a refund to the Saudi's.I don't want to change it now, or for this election....the rules were set already.... but for future presidential elections, it should change to a democratic popular vote, like ALL OTHER elected officials.
And we have that taken care of with our Senators, a state with 39 million has 2 senators and a state with 530,000 has 2 senators.....but our President should be the vote of the populous.but why is it fair to limit the worth of 1 man's vote who just happens to live in a city, and magnify 1 man's vote who lives in the suburbs or country? it makes no sense?Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.No Missouri_Mike
Where do you get that I am not RELIEVED that Trump won because of the Electoral System this time?
If a candidate has to win BOTH votes that INCLUDES the Electoral College, it doesn't reject it at ALL!!!
Are you trying to clarify that if there is a runoff, we should use the same system again?
And have ALL the people vote for just those two candidates,
and then use the Electoral system again for the runoff?
Okay, SURE! Whatever it takes to ensure the Winner wins
BOTH the Popular and Electoral Vote so we don't have this nonsense afterward.
Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!
It's called Federalism. States have power, regardless of their size or population density.
Not all city dwellers live in a harlem you know? Most who live in cities like New York or Boston are high wage tax payers, why should a state squash the votes of city dwellers just because they live in a city, for goodness sake??? the poor don't vote...they are the least likely to vote, but the Doctors and lawyers and Indian Chiefs and wall streeters do vote....WHY, since they pay the most in taxes, should their vote count less than the small town farmer 50 miles away? WHY? that is NOT FAIR.Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.yes, they can do it, and they are SUPPOSE to do it....that's what the constitution says and that's how hamilton and madison created electors to be.... make their own decision on who to vote for..... not even coordinating with other electors in their State, but an informed, individual, decision....not by party, not by popular vote but they alone were to make their own individual decision.
Then politics got involved, and electors figured out they could have more power if they colluded together on who to pick as their candidate...and it's been all downhill since then...
ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....every elected position in the USA is picked that way....governors, senators, congressmen, legislators, county clerk, sheriff, school board members etc....
except our President.... it's bull crud.
IF TRUMP had won the popular vote but Hillary won the electoral vote, Trump would be tweeting from the rafters, the election was rigged, the system is rigged....
when wisonsin gets 3 electors for 500k citizens, and california with 39 million citizens gets 55, then the citizens in their state's vote does not count equally with a citizen in Wisconsin....that's simply not right, not fair, not just. one man, one vote against another man's vote, should be equal
if calif had the same proportion of electors as wisconsin citizens get, california would have 195 electors, not the 55....
it's stupid and highly unfair.
Dear Care4all
We could change it where the winner has to get majority of BOTH electoral and popular votes.
Then we could face a runoff in December by ALL people not just Electors.
Wouldn't that be a media circus?
Would the media back this so they can make even more money off more hype that never ends?
No Missouri_Mike
Where do you get that I am not RELIEVED that Trump won because of the Electoral System this time?
If a candidate has to win BOTH votes that INCLUDES the Electoral College, it doesn't reject it at ALL!!!
Are you trying to clarify that if there is a runoff, we should use the same system again?
And have ALL the people vote for just those two candidates,
and then use the Electoral system again for the runoff?
Okay, SURE! Whatever it takes to ensure the Winner wins
BOTH the Popular and Electoral Vote so we don't have this nonsense afterward.
Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!
the president represents everyone.... and Donald trump got nearly the same votes as Hillary without a single major city, so there is plenty of votes in the nation NOT from a major city....And we have that taken care of with our Senators, a state with 39 million has 2 senators and a state with 530,000 has 2 senators.....but our President should be the vote of the populous.but why is it fair to limit the worth of 1 man's vote who just happens to live in a city, and magnify 1 man's vote who lives in the suburbs or country? it makes no sense?Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.
Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!
It's called Federalism. States have power, regardless of their size or population density.
The concept works for Senators, why should it not for the Presidential vote?
And really, we should have NY, LA and Chicago elect every President from now on?
Yea, pass.
no silly!Which states are squashing votes? Are you saying those that pay more taxes should have more votes that count? What the hell is your silly point?
Is it just my imagination, or are they actually recognizing Louisville as a high population area?
since when did LAND get the right to VOTE?
