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.
Everybody has varying voting power to pick the president depending on where they live. Electoral college is affirmative action for rural america. Wyoming resident has 43 times the voting power than California resident. Voting for president in a solid blue or solid red state is like farting in the wind; presidential candidates dont put much effort into those solid states because thats not what will win them the election. Efforts into purple states is required under the electoral college system.Are you familiar with the concept of swing states?Then point out my mistake.I love how leftists discover something literally decades after their peers do, promptly misunderstand it thoroughly, and then wander around pronouncing on it as though they're experts.
Your entire post, and the premise you're operating from. I just told you that.
You're not getting any swifter on the uptake, Sparkles.
Presidential candidates only care about swing states, largely because of electoral college.
Take care of electoral college, and everybody in the USA will get to pick the president, not just those who live in swing states. This much I know is true, is it not?
Wow, I'm so glad you shared your "wisdom" with me. Too bad it was neither wise nor required.
Everyone ALREADY picks the President, you short-sighted, illogical twerp. The fact that some states vary, or "swing", between following one party or another doesn't mean that the states which solidly follow one party aren't still having an effect on the election. Cripes, how do you manage to walk and breathe at the same time?
"Take care of" the Electoral College, and it will be those non-swing stateS that pick the President, and everyone else can just go fuck themselves. This much IS true, whatever it is you think you "know".
Ooops.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.
That is not true. The Democrats controlled Congress until 1994, two years of Clinton's first term. The Republicans took the House for the first time in 40 years.
Just as soon as California agrees not to count the MILLIONS of illegals as their population.Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.
Agreed, it should be divided up based upon the population and how they vote. Not a winner take all.
Illegals can't vote.
Illegals can't drink and drive, steal or commit murder. But that doesn't stop some of them.
By there nature illegals look to stay off the radar. Why risk a stupid ass felony like illegally voting ? Makes no sense . That’s why there’s no problem with it .
I'm for leaving it as it is now that allows the states to decide how they want to determine their electors. I'd vote against a state legislator candidate that favors the determination be based on national popular vote.
The new trend is the "clever" Democrats trying to use states' rights to do an end run around the Constitution AND individual voting rights by having states declare that they will ignore the vote outcomes of their own population, and give their electors to whomever OTHER states vote for.
I expect to see a court challenge against state legislatures disenfranchising their own constituents any day now.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires how states must choose their electors and so it would be quite legal for each of the states in their wisdom to decide they'll allow you or I to select their electors for them. We already have Maine and Nebraska going the congressional district route as opposed to winner-take-all. Plus in 2016 we had 7 electors from other states that took it upon themselves to cast votes not in accordance with their state's vote. I was able to vote back in 1972 only because of the Constitution amendment lowering the voting age to 18. I looked up the amendment this week and saw that while it gave me the right to vote in any election, it did not require the state to actually hold an election.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.Basically I believe you're stuck talking common sense about how things should be. I'm just cautioning that those that wish not to be disenfranchised best be proactive and not assume the courts will handle it.
I'm aware that the Constitution gives states the power to decide how their electors are allocated, but thank you so very much for "helpfully" providing me a long lecture on it anyway.
Perhaps if you had taken a moment to read and think about my post, rather than just kneejerking to "Aha, here's something I can condescend about!" you'd have noticed that my post mentioned voting rights and disenfranchisement. It's almost like THAT was what I was talking about, and not anything at all to do with "They don't have the power to allocate electors!"
Come back when you have response to my post that actually responds to my post.
I'm for leaving it as it is now that allows the states to decide how they want to determine their electors. I'd vote against a state legislator candidate that favors the determination be based on national popular vote.
The new trend is the "clever" Democrats trying to use states' rights to do an end run around the Constitution AND individual voting rights by having states declare that they will ignore the vote outcomes of their own population, and give their electors to whomever OTHER states vote for.
I expect to see a court challenge against state legislatures disenfranchising their own constituents any day now.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires how states must choose their electors and so it would be quite legal for each of the states in their wisdom to decide they'll allow you or I to select their electors for them. We already have Maine and Nebraska going the congressional district route as opposed to winner-take-all. Plus in 2016 we had 7 electors from other states that took it upon themselves to cast votes not in accordance with their state's vote. I was able to vote back in 1972 only because of the Constitution amendment lowering the voting age to 18. I looked up the amendment this week and saw that while it gave me the right to vote in any election, it did not require the state to actually hold an election.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.Basically I believe you're stuck talking common sense about how things should be. I'm just cautioning that those that wish not to be disenfranchised best be proactive and not assume the courts will handle it.
I'm aware that the Constitution gives states the power to decide how their electors are allocated, but thank you so very much for "helpfully" providing me a long lecture on it anyway.
Perhaps if you had taken a moment to read and think about my post, rather than just kneejerking to "Aha, here's something I can condescend about!" you'd have noticed that my post mentioned voting rights and disenfranchisement. It's almost like THAT was what I was talking about, and not anything at all to do with "They don't have the power to allocate electors!"
Come back when you have response to my post that actually responds to my post.
Excuse me, I just mistakenly gave you credit for understanding that if a state declares they're going to select electors based on the national, not state's, popular vote then nobody is losing their voting rights or being disenfranchised.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.
“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”
More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College
Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.
I don't agree, although I did like a lot of what EW had to say. The founders didn't want the most populous states to be able to install presidents. California and New York, both media centers influenced by groupthink, cannot be allowed to dictate the direction of the country. I think the electoral college still works just fine, even with the aberration of 2016.Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.
“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”
More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College
Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.
“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”
More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College
Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.I don't agree, although I did like a lot of what EW had to say. The founders didn't want the most populous states to be able to install presidents. California and New York, both media centers influenced by groupthink, cannot be allowed to dictate the direction of the country. I think the electoral college still works just fine, even with the aberration of 2016.Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.
“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”
More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College
Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.
We must end the racist Electoral College nightmare!
When you win the 45% is never mentioned.Everybody has varying voting power to pick the president depending on where they live. Electoral college is affirmative action for rural america. Wyoming resident has 43 times the voting power than California resident. Voting for president in a solid blue or solid red state is like farting in the wind; presidential candidates dont put much effort into those solid states because thats not what will win them the election. Efforts into purple states is required under the electoral college system.Are you familiar with the concept of swing states?Then point out my mistake.
Your entire post, and the premise you're operating from. I just told you that.
You're not getting any swifter on the uptake, Sparkles.
Presidential candidates only care about swing states, largely because of electoral college.
Take care of electoral college, and everybody in the USA will get to pick the president, not just those who live in swing states. This much I know is true, is it not?
Wow, I'm so glad you shared your "wisdom" with me. Too bad it was neither wise nor required.
Everyone ALREADY picks the President, you short-sighted, illogical twerp. The fact that some states vary, or "swing", between following one party or another doesn't mean that the states which solidly follow one party aren't still having an effect on the election. Cripes, how do you manage to walk and breathe at the same time?
"Take care of" the Electoral College, and it will be those non-swing stateS that pick the President, and everyone else can just go fuck themselves. This much IS true, whatever it is you think you "know".
Indeed, residents of a "red" state or a "blue" state have no reason to vote at all. It's already predetermined for them.
Which also means it's impossible to assess how many of that 45% who didn't bother to vote last round (which was a typical showing) WOULD bother to show up if they knew their vote actually meant something.
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.
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
But that's not what this is about. This is about changing the rules until Democrats can win every election.
Here is a history of changes Democrats have suggested or had done in the past years.
* Get rid of punchcard ballots and go to electronic voting.
* Get rid of Diebold machines and replace them with another brand.
* Votes counted in exit polls (after John Kerry's loss) should be the decider of President.
* Illegals be allowed to vote.
* Prisoners be allowed to vote.
* Ex cons be allowed to vote.
* Children be allowed to vote.
* People with no identification be allowed to vote.
Do you see a pattern here? If you're honest with yourself, every suggestion was to try and favor the Democrat candidate.
Yeah I see a pattern. I take it this is your entry for the "Can You Top This" list of fabrications.
And not a bad piece of work in that vein if I may say. Keep it going though. The key to good comedy is to stretch it beyond the absurd, and then keep on going.
Just as soon as California agrees not to count the MILLIONS of illegals as their population.I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.
Agreed, it should be divided up based upon the population and how they vote. Not a winner take all.
Illegals can't vote.
Interesting.Guilty until proven innocent, I guess. The court of public opinion does not convict anyone as a criminal.
Interesting.Guilty until proven innocent, I guess. The court of public opinion does not convict anyone as a criminal.
You must therefor believe that....
Stephen Paddock : Not a criminal
Adam Lanza: Not a criminal
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold: Not criminals.
Do you think the families and friends of their victims agree with you?
I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
But that's not what this is about. This is about changing the rules until Democrats can win every election.
Here is a history of changes Democrats have suggested or had done in the past years.
* Get rid of punchcard ballots and go to electronic voting.
* Get rid of Diebold machines and replace them with another brand.
* Votes counted in exit polls (after John Kerry's loss) should be the decider of President.
* Illegals be allowed to vote.
* Prisoners be allowed to vote.
* Ex cons be allowed to vote.
* Children be allowed to vote.
* People with no identification be allowed to vote.
Do you see a pattern here? If you're honest with yourself, every suggestion was to try and favor the Democrat candidate.
Yeah I see a pattern. I take it this is your entry for the "Can You Top This" list of fabrications.
And not a bad piece of work in that vein if I may say. Keep it going though. The key to good comedy is to stretch it beyond the absurd, and then keep on going.
Nothing is fabricated. Democrats at one time or another proposed those things. As for the change over of voting machines, that was all by the Democrats and their constant whining about losing elections.
We must end the racist Electoral College nightmare!
Not in your lifetime, sonWe must end the racist Electoral College nightmare!
I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.
Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.
But that's not what this is about. This is about changing the rules until Democrats can win every election.
Here is a history of changes Democrats have suggested or had done in the past years.
* Get rid of punchcard ballots and go to electronic voting.
* Get rid of Diebold machines and replace them with another brand.
* Votes counted in exit polls (after John Kerry's loss) should be the decider of President.
* Illegals be allowed to vote.
* Prisoners be allowed to vote.
* Ex cons be allowed to vote.
* Children be allowed to vote.
* People with no identification be allowed to vote.
Do you see a pattern here? If you're honest with yourself, every suggestion was to try and favor the Democrat candidate.
Yeah I see a pattern. I take it this is your entry for the "Can You Top This" list of fabrications.
And not a bad piece of work in that vein if I may say. Keep it going though. The key to good comedy is to stretch it beyond the absurd, and then keep on going.
Nothing is fabricated. Democrats at one time or another proposed those things. As for the change over of voting machines, that was all by the Democrats and their constant whining about losing elections.
Oh I know about Diebold and Wally the CEO pledging to do whatever needed to be done to ensure Bush got elected. That's a no-brainer although nobody needs to be a "Democrat" to get that. Not even Wally.
What I don't know about is anyone anywhere ever advocating children, illegals, exit polls or electronic voting. If you could, you know, go ahead and try to link any of that, that'd be great.
Yes they are the State loses its vote if that State in fact voted for the other guy.I'm for leaving it as it is now that allows the states to decide how they want to determine their electors. I'd vote against a state legislator candidate that favors the determination be based on national popular vote.
The new trend is the "clever" Democrats trying to use states' rights to do an end run around the Constitution AND individual voting rights by having states declare that they will ignore the vote outcomes of their own population, and give their electors to whomever OTHER states vote for.
I expect to see a court challenge against state legislatures disenfranchising their own constituents any day now.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires how states must choose their electors and so it would be quite legal for each of the states in their wisdom to decide they'll allow you or I to select their electors for them. We already have Maine and Nebraska going the congressional district route as opposed to winner-take-all. Plus in 2016 we had 7 electors from other states that took it upon themselves to cast votes not in accordance with their state's vote. I was able to vote back in 1972 only because of the Constitution amendment lowering the voting age to 18. I looked up the amendment this week and saw that while it gave me the right to vote in any election, it did not require the state to actually hold an election.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.Basically I believe you're stuck talking common sense about how things should be. I'm just cautioning that those that wish not to be disenfranchised best be proactive and not assume the courts will handle it.
I'm aware that the Constitution gives states the power to decide how their electors are allocated, but thank you so very much for "helpfully" providing me a long lecture on it anyway.
Perhaps if you had taken a moment to read and think about my post, rather than just kneejerking to "Aha, here's something I can condescend about!" you'd have noticed that my post mentioned voting rights and disenfranchisement. It's almost like THAT was what I was talking about, and not anything at all to do with "They don't have the power to allocate electors!"
Come back when you have response to my post that actually responds to my post.
Excuse me, I just mistakenly gave you credit for understanding that if a state declares they're going to select electors based on the national, not state's, popular vote then nobody is losing their voting rights or being disenfranchised.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.
“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”
More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College
Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.
