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.
HHillary, again, ran the worst campaign in US history. The 2 states she refused to visit and lost made up the difference in her loss.Bill Clinton, if snowflakes had had their way - no electoral college in '92, would have LOST!The frickin' "Democratic Party" has nothing to do with the EC question, Dumbass. 1992 was in fact when the "FairVote" project was launched, as noted earlier, from both sides of politics.
Time to grow the fuck up and shed the binary-bot shit.
Instead, he lost the 'popular vote' BS but won the Presidency with the Electoral College....NO TANTRUM.
Hillary ran the worst campaign in US history in 2016, did not even visit the states she list - which cost her the election....she did what Bill did not do - win the popular vote - and failed to do what he DID do - win the Presidency.
Hillary supporters openly wept, and for the last 2 years they have continued to throw a tantrum...and you laughably tell ME to 'grow up'...
Bwuhahahaha......
Once AGAIN moron, there is no "Hillary" in this question. And also AGAIN, just because you were too fucked up to notice or chose to ignore it, the EC question has been gurgling for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Including the year of 1992.
The Electoral College was / is not the problem.
This crooked criminal bitch couldn't even win a rigged election.
Criminal? What was she ever convicted of - after umpteen NaziCon investigations?
Sometimes you just need to use common sense and logic. OJ was found innocent too.
The result would would fuck over Rural America... The whole point of going to a pure popular voteYou are assuming that the popular votes and campaigning would remain the same if the system were changed. That isn’t the caseYou’re not understanding, those EC votes add up as seen in 2016. With a pure popular vote the votes just are not there to make any difference... Never have been and never will be.Cali already wipes out those states with EC votes. Ca has 55... ND (3) SD(3) WY(3) MT(3) and ID(4) add up to 16. What’s else you got?Ok, Southern California Would displace five states in the northern plains, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.Explain why... these empty proclaimations are meaningless. I just put out some points. How about trying to respond to them or make some of your own. Something more than “it’s a slam dunk for progressives”. WHY? HOW?A pure popular vote is a slam dunk for progressives, It’s not even close.
There is no reason for rural America to even vote with a pure popular vote.
And the billionaire real estate tycoon from New York City is just the one who knows what rural America needs. Like I said.. He sold a bunch of snake oil.Trump got elected because he sold a bunch of snake oil and Hillary was a terrible candidate.Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.
Trump got elected because rural Americans were being left behind.
Funny.
Truth is rural America was being left behind.
Bill Clinton didn't even get 50% of the popular vote in both elections.'In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.'
Where was the Democratic Party's tantrum and call to abolish the Electoral College in 1992 when Bill Clinton LOST the 'Popular Vote' Presidential Election?
Why We Shouldn’t Scrap the Electoral College | myHeritage
Funny. Bill Clinton did receive the most popular votes in 1992. Why did your NaziCon Heritage link leave that little fact out?
1992 Presidential Election
William J. Clinton Democratic 370 44,908,254
George Bush (I) Republican 168 39,102,343
Ross Perot Independent 0 19,743,821
Presidential Election of 1992
Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...
Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.
States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…
There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...
Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...
Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.
States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…
There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...
I figure if you keep calling a true democracy shit eating ppl will start turning against your point of view. May as well be the Manchurian poster.
But anyways, I figure geographic size counts for SOMETHING and the Electoral College and Senate are where it does.
FWIW, if one guy lived in Kansas and 300 million in Oregon I'd revisit this. I'm not totally against the debate.
So what - as it has been proven to you, the Director of the FBI testified under oath before Congress that Hillary Clinton Perjured herself and committed crimes.Criminal? What was she ever convicted of - after umpteen NaziCon investigations?
Why should a vote in Montana be worth more than a vote in Pennsylvania?
The nations elections should not be decided by America's urban centres, run by party hacks.
If there was ever a time for the Electoral college to prove it's worth it was the 2016 election....
But all they proved was their worthlessness!
It's time to abolish the EC!
Okay, maybe I'm wrong.I have a feeling if the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans would be looking at this differently.Won't happen.
Thread is another exercise in futility.
I have a feeling you only think that because YOUR principles are selfish and subjective, and you assume everyone is like you. Don't project.
So what - as it has been proven to you, the Director of the FBI testified under oath before Congress that Hillary Clinton Perjured herself and committed crimes.Criminal? What was she ever convicted of - after umpteen NaziCon investigations?
You can try to continue to ignore that 'll you want but it remains a fact, you pathetic snowflake.
Rural California which represents millions of Republicans can make a case for being unrepresented in the presidential election under our current system can they not?The result would would fuck over Rural America... The whole point of going to a pure popular voteYou are assuming that the popular votes and campaigning would remain the same if the system were changed. That isn’t the caseYou’re not understanding, those EC votes add up as seen in 2016. With a pure popular vote the votes just are not there to make any difference... Never have been and never will be.Cali already wipes out those states with EC votes. Ca has 55... ND (3) SD(3) WY(3) MT(3) and ID(4) add up to 16. What’s else you got?Ok, Southern California Would displace five states in the northern plains, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.Explain why... these empty proclaimations are meaningless. I just put out some points. How about trying to respond to them or make some of your own. Something more than “it’s a slam dunk for progressives”. WHY? HOW?
What about dividing up the number of votes according the a percentage of the popular vote instead of winner takes all. For example. California has 55 electoral votes. If candidate A wins 30% of the vote they get 16 votes and candidate B with 70% gets 39 votes. Some states do this. Doesn’t that seem more fair and representative of the people?The other way to fix the electoral college system is to tie the number of electoral votes each state gets to it's actual population.
Its going because only a few states actually pick the president (swing states).All those things are orthogonal with each other.#1) Deport all illegals
#2) Build the wall
#3) Balance the Budget
#4) Do 1-3 and we can abolish the EC.
Vermont and RI have very similar ratios of voters per EC vote. So stop whining.
The Electoral College isn't going anywhere because the States elect the president.
And wyoming residents have 43x voting power than california resident.
Without the skewing of the process to focus on the so-called “battleground” states where the balance can be tipped in the Electoral College, candidates would be freed to make appeals to voters in every part of the country
The EC isn't going anywhere because 2/3 of the States will never vote to change the EC. Hope that isn't too hard to understand. Keep whining, or move on...
If not for the electoral college Bill Clinton would never have been president since he never had a majority of the popular vote in his first try, and the election would have gone to the House which was controlled by Republicans.The Electoral College is rooted in slavery. Abolish it.
We abolished slavery. Descendants of former slaves add to the EC count of many states.
Yeah, finally, but they forgot to abolish the Electoral College.
Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.I think it's you that doesn't understand.
Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.
Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.
Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.
How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?
After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!
So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?
Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.
I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.
But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.
So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.
Areas are represented by the house and Senate.
People do have a voice with a Republic, Democracy not as much. The Electoral College helps for all to have a voice, even minorities. All voices from all over the nation get a voice, it matters not the flavor of the day, it equalizes the might of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.
Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.
We all know why they started the EC, pony express was slow and only the elites read and voted.
WRONG!
Why the Electoral College
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
