New DNC President Demostrates Democrats Spew Ignorance and Lies (Electoral College)

[Ray From Cleveland]

as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.

one person= one vote?

they dont'.

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.

Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?


Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

Okay! Now I get it. If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner. Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
The EC is, imo, a thing of the past. I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them. It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.

A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess. Imagine if it were popular vote only. Then the candidate would have no reason to visit your state. He would have no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once he became President. He would have no concern about using your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.

The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing. Less populated states like yours have more power with the EC than it would have with a popular vote. I mean, if you live in a state with 3 million people, you have to assume that less than 2 million are of voting age, and out of that 2 million, less than one million actually vote.

Yet another post undermining its own position.

Ironically Maine is one of only two states that does not use the WTA system, however it uses a microcosm version of the same thing (Congressional districts), so within that microcosm exists the same fault ---- namely, that any voter who doesn't fall into lockstep with his "EC/WTA unit" (in Maine's case the district, in most states the entire state) --- has no reason to go vote because his or her vote is going to be immediatley tossed in the trash can anyway.

Don't y'all GET that having only 55% of the electorate show up for an election is an abysmally poor showing? Don't y'all GET why that is?

We know why that is. It's because people don't take elections seriously. In some cases, people get so pissed off that they want to show their party how angry they are by not voting. This was prevalent in the last election. Many Republicans were pissed off because Trump became the nominee. Same thing with the Democrat party. Hillary is not a very liked person. Trump made up for lost voters by newly registered voters that signed on just to vote for him.

Please. Then why are other countries with actual representative systems seeing 80 and 90 percent participation? You don't think other countries have not-well-liked politicians?

Now you talk about people feeling disenfranchised because they live in a red or blue state. How do you think the rest of the country would feel if only four or five states decided the election? What would be the purpose for the other states to get out and vote?

This lame argument of "X number of states deciding an election" has never made a lick of sense. It still doesn't.

How many millions of votes did Rump get in California? In New York? I don't have the number any more and don't feel like looking it up but let's say it's "umpteen million". How many of those umpteen million votes actually counted? ZERO, that's how many. That's because the Electors of California and New York went to Congress and lied, "wow, literally everybody in our state voted for Hillary Clinton". Which is bullshit.

Now --- how many Californians and New Yorkers would have voted for Rump but didn't bother because they KNEW their vote was not going to count, so what's the point?

There's your 45% staying home. That's where it's coming from.

The further dimension is that how many -- in any state --- would have voted for Gary Johnson, or some other third party, but saw no point because regardless which way their state ended up it was going Duopoly? How many umpteen million voters voted for Hillary only because she was not Rump, or for Rump because he was not Hillary? How many voters are doing nothing more than playing Tic Tac Toe to BLOCK a candy they want to prevent?

"Voting to block" --- another scourge that would not exist without WTA.

And there's your perpetuation of the same system. The WTA EC makes it impossible to have anything BUT a Duopoly system.

What you are failing to realize is that both systems will leave people out of the loop. You're trying to claim only one is.

We do have a WTA system. We have it for our Congress person, we have it for our Senators, we have it for our state and local positions. The presidency is the only one with an EC vote, and you have less people voting in those elections than you to the presidential.

I live in an all Democrat area, and again, we use the WTA system for our candidates outside of the president. It makes no sense for me to vote for a Republican because I have a better chance at hitting the lottery two times in a month than a Republican coming close to being elected here. Unless there are other issues on the ballot, it makes no sense for me to leave the house on election day.

Now if you really want to see some change, perhaps we should start removing the party affiliation by the candidates name. Only informed people will be able to tell who is Republican, Independent, Democrat. The rest will be just taking a luck guess, or will have to dig around before going to vote.

 

[Pogo]

I

Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?

Why can't you address the content of the post? You accused me of trolling earlier! It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!

It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!

Is your hair perchance blonde? If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.

The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled b y an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.

Why do I need to ruled by an elite? We have no rulers in the country. If we had rulers, we would be subjects.

Is there no end to you political ignorance?

You are a subject, and a slave. You made yourself one,

No more than you are.

You consider Trump an elite?

So was everyone else running in the last election.

In fact, Trump was LESS an elite than the rest.

No, there is nothing elite about Bernie Sanders. The man has never held a real job in his lifetime.

You're thinking of Rump actually. Sanders has been a Senator, a Congressman before that, a Mayor before that, a filmmaker before that, a writer before that. He was my Congressman 25 years ago; I know this stuff.

Rump on the other hand has never held a job in his life until January of this year.

 

[Pogo]

A democratic republic. We are not Rome, just very close.

Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?

I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.

Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.

It was a good start, but they eventually changed it. They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely. So much for your democracy.

So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes. Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.

Death throes? You are too young to realize how good you have it now.

You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war. You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!

How the fuck do you know all this about a poster who just joined USMB the same day you posted this?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?

I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.

Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.

It was a good start, but they eventually changed it. They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely. So much for your democracy.

So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes. Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.

Death throes? You are too young to realize how good you have it now.

You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war. You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!

How the fuck do you know all this about a poster who just joined USMB the same day you posted this?

Because she's right here, take a look!

 

[Pogo]

You live in America and you don't understand our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation? My Lord, this is very sad.

I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.

Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we live in a representative republic. We also live by the US Constitution, and if you don't like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it. Until that time, the Constitution is the rule of the land.

More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.

I have no idea WTF you're talking about. Care to elaborate?

The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness. It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.

Ironically -- the Electoral College was created, largely, to do just that --- put a veto on a charlatan.

Only a couple of electors took that responsibility seriously this last round. I believe there are even some state laws that coerce them to fall into lockstep with the WTA system under penalty of law, or replacement, or both -- which is completely unConstitutional. So the system is already perverted.

 

[Pogo]

Link to the speech?

Actually -- link to anything?

Don't you believe it is true? Why not keep up with your party?

No I wouldn't take ShitSpitter's word for what the fuck time it is considering the source.

And when I posted that I already knew he had no evidence, because I looked it up myself.

And I don't have a "your party". My political party faction is the largest and most important one in the electorate. -- It's called "None".

 

[Pogo]

Trump represents the minority because the majority voted against him. Not majority rule even in a Republic.

Trump represents the majority of geographic America. No one wants to be ruled by two cities.

Dirt doesn't get a vote, people do.

Well, I guess you could say that there are millions and millions of folks who actually own that dirt. They use the dirt to create food and the Founders considered them just as worthy as the city folks. They came up with a way to ensure that 1 or 2 cities cannot become tyrannical. BTW if you think for one second you live in a pure democracy, you would be tragically ignorant. Try looking a bit deeper instead of buying the socialist, democrat, communist media lies. Hillary LOST....get over it.

Actually cities weren't players at all when the EC was contrived. The vast majority of the population lived on farms. That was the Norm. What was a player at the time was Slavery. And that's a large part of the EC's role --- shunting more power to the slave states than their franchised population would have warranted.

That's where we get the "3/5 of a person" bullshit --- slave states were allowed to count their slaves at a rate of 60% for the purpose of allocating how many white people could represent them, while at the same time granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote or any citizenship rights.

That's also a big part of the reason four of our first five Presidents -- and eight of the nine first administrations --- were slaveholders form the South, specifically from Virginia, the largest state with the most electoral votes.

So there's your classic example of "one state determining an election".

 

[Pogo]

If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.

To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected. At least we on the right are trying to change our politics. Actually, it's been going on for some time between the Tea Party types and the Establishment. The Democrats are one solid party. One thinks like the next hundred of them. Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.

I don't think that's even close.

Will Rogers put it this way --- "I do not belong to an organized political party; I am a Democrat".
And that was in the '30s.

This returns us right back to the pitfall of operating under a Duopoly and a system that shuts out all competition (in this discussion, the WTA system) --- any given voter who may not identify with either iteration of that Duopoly, is left with the Hobson's Choice of either running with the lesser of two evils, or being shut out of the process altogether.

And considering that the largest political party body in the country is "None" --- that's highly significant. And as long as that system is allowed to perpetuate itself ----- nothing will change.

I think it is changing. Trump beat out mostly establishment and professional politicians. The people are speaking to the party. It's just a matter of time when they start listening.

The Democrat party of the 30's, 40's, 50's is not the Democrat party of today. And I don't know what a WTA system is.

"WTA" is what this whole thread is about ---- the "Winner Take All" system used by the Electrical College. That's why I keep noting how it throws votes in the trash. That's what the speaker in the cherrypicked sound clip in the OP is talking about. That's why I noted as soon as the thread went up, that the context was deliberately edited out.

Rump did run, and find success, as a not-part-of-the-system actor, but used the same Duopoly to get elected. Sanders tried to do the same thing but the System locked the door. Neither one chops down the system --- it just introduces new blood into the same system.

There are only two ways to vote: The EC system which has worked fine for us the last couple of centuries, or the WTA as you call it. Either way, not everybody will have their vote counted. Either way, there will be people that don't bother to vote because it's a waste of time as far as they are concerned.

"Worked fine" cannot fit a description of a system that perpetuates a Duopoly of two nearly-identical parties that KNOW going in that they're going to share power forever and need not be concerned with any outside alternative. "Worked fine" cannot fit a description of a ridiculous voter participation rate because what's the point. "Worked fine" cannot fit a description of literally millions of voters getting their votes ground into a garbage disposal. "Worked fine" cannot fit a description of a system that makes the entire political system dependent on polls to find out whether it's worth leaving the house to go to the polling place, or for a candy to find out whether it's worth going to do a campaign appearance.

I like the line "not everybody will have their vote counted". Slaves had some experience with that. So did women. Great set of precedents there.

 

[Pogo]

What you are failing to realize is that both systems will leave people out of the loop. You're trying to claim only one is.

We do have a WTA system. We have it for our Congress person, we have it for our Senators, we have it for our state and local positions. The presidency is the only one with an EC vote, and you have less people voting in those elections than you to the presidential.

No, we absolutely do not.

If we actually had that, and if it made any sense, then your state's governor would be elected by the counties, and not by the populace. If some candidate squeaked by enough counties while losing big in others, and lost the state aggregate vote, THEN you'd have the same kind of dump. No state does that. And none would; it would be stupid.

Governors --- and Senators, and Congresscritters, and Mayors and city councils and even sheriffs and judges --- are elected directly by the vote count. Not by a proxy that does wha they want. There are only two countries in the world that use this bullshit proxy system to elect a head of state. One of them is us. The other is Pakistan.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What you are failing to realize is that both systems will leave people out of the loop. You're trying to claim only one is.

We do have a WTA system. We have it for our Congress person, we have it for our Senators, we have it for our state and local positions. The presidency is the only one with an EC vote, and you have less people voting in those elections than you to the presidential.

No, we absolutely do not.

If we actually had that, and if it made any sense, then your state's governor would be elected by the counties, and not by the populace. If some candidate squeaked by enough counties while losing big in others, and lost the state aggregate vote, THEN you'd have the same kind of dump. No state does that. And none would; it would be stupid.

Governors --- and Senators, and Congresscritters, and Mayors and city councils and even sheriffs and judges --- are elected directly by the vote count. Not by a proxy that does wha they want. There are only two countries in the world that use this bullshit proxy system to elect a head of state. One of them is us. The other is Pakistan.

I must be confused. When you said Winner Take All, I thought you were talking about the popular vote. I'll discontinue using that term.

Yes, we have a popular vote for every other election outside of the presidency. Those elections produce a lower percentage of voters than the presidential election. So it's not the EC system responsible for lower voter turnout. And as I stated, the popular vote has the same problems with disenfranchisement as the EC. So trying to solve a problem by creating a different problem is no solution.

 

[KatieK]

Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.

Trump won the presidency. Deal with that.

I am, and I'm watching him destroy the office and ruin the standing of American all over the globe. A weak man leading an even weaker nation.

Well get used to it because it's going to be that way for another three years and probably seven.

Not a chance in hell. Most people already hate him including many who voted for him.

Nope. Most of the people that voted for him are quite satisfied. A great economy, great judges, lowest border crossings in years, strong stock market, great unemployment numbers, and that includes first time unemployment filers. Everything is great as far as we're concerned. Don't let those bogus polls tell you differently:

Poll: 4 of 10 voters are 'silent Trump supporters'

A Fox poll showing him with a 38% approval rating is not false. He sucks but idiots like you still like him.

 

[KatieK]

What you are failing to realize is that both systems will leave people out of the loop. You're trying to claim only one is.

We do have a WTA system. We have it for our Congress person, we have it for our Senators, we have it for our state and local positions. The presidency is the only one with an EC vote, and you have less people voting in those elections than you to the presidential.

No, we absolutely do not.

If we actually had that, and if it made any sense, then your state's governor would be elected by the counties, and not by the populace. If some candidate squeaked by enough counties while losing big in others, and lost the state aggregate vote, THEN you'd have the same kind of dump. No state does that. And none would; it would be stupid.

Governors --- and Senators, and Congresscritters, and Mayors and city councils and even sheriffs and judges --- are elected directly by the vote count. Not by a proxy that does wha they want. There are only two countries in the world that use this bullshit proxy system to elect a head of state. One of them is us. The other is Pakistan.

I must be confused. When you said Winner Take All, I thought you were talking about the popular vote. I'll discontinue using that term.

Yes, we have a popular vote for every other election outside of the presidency. Those elections produce a lower percentage of voters than the presidential election. So it's not the EC system responsible for lower voter turnout. And as I stated, the popular vote has the same problems with disenfranchisement as the EC. So trying to solve a problem by creating a different problem is no solution.

With the EC there's no reason for a popular vote on the President since it doesn't fucking matter. Time to be rid of it or stop calling ourselves what we aren't, a democratic republic.

 

[KatieK]

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.

.........

there. there.....

Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control

sheep ^^^^

you are nothing but a commicrat sheep......

Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again

Ha! Ha! Marxists whine about 'class conflict' when they are the ones creating the classes. You commie dumbos are are so stupid you don't even realize YOU are the bourgeoisie. The Proletariat comprise geographic America and it is they who put Trump in office. How can you be so stupid?

Capitalism is what creates the classes. The rich at the top and the rest at the bottom with a rare few trying to stay in the middle. And it's only gotten much worse since people like the Bushes and Trump came upon the scene and gave even more breaks and wealth to the top. But not to worry, the days of literally eating the rich are coming.

 

[OldLady]

Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously. That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.

What don't you GET about that?

What don't YOU get that your way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?

If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter? Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.

as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.

one person= one vote?

they dont'.

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.

Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?


Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

Okay! Now I get it. If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner. Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
The EC is, imo, a thing of the past. I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them. It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.

WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.

"Hey, this guy wants to be my president, but we're not good enough for him to come see us in person. Why should I vote for him?"

You must live in one of the swing states, or New Hampshire. You're spoilt. No one ever comes to see us (well hardly) and we manage.

 

[OldLady]

Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously. That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.

What don't you GET about that?

What don't YOU get that your way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?

If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter? Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.

as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.

one person= one vote?

they dont'.

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.

Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?


Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

Okay! Now I get it. If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner. Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
The EC is, imo, a thing of the past. I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them. It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.

A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess. Imagine if it were popular vote only. Then the candidate would have no reason to visit your state. He would have no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once he became President. He would have no concern about using your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.

The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing. Less populated states like yours have more power with the EC than it would have with a popular vote. I mean, if you live in a state with 3 million people, you have to assume that less than 2 million are of voting age, and out of that 2 million, less than one million actually vote.

I don't understand why they wouldn't visit to get the individuals' votes. I don't know how much "power" the EC gives us. We have four votes. California has 55.

 

[DGS49]

Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately). THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.

I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What don't YOU get that your way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?

If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter? Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.

as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.

one person= one vote?

they dont'.

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.

Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?


Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?

Okay! Now I get it. If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner. Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
The EC is, imo, a thing of the past. I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them. It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.

A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess. Imagine if it were popular vote only. Then the candidate would have no reason to visit your state. He would have no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once he became President. He would have no concern about using your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.

The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing. Less populated states like yours have more power with the EC than it would have with a popular vote. I mean, if you live in a state with 3 million people, you have to assume that less than 2 million are of voting age, and out of that 2 million, less than one million actually vote.

I don't understand why they wouldn't visit to get the individuals' votes. I don't know how much "power" the EC gives us. We have four votes. California has 55.

The EC doesn't make everything equal, just more power than you'd have with a popular vote. 4X10 is 40 electoral votes.

If you only have one million registered voters, and only half of them vote for a President (which is typical) then you have no power at all really.

 

[KatieK]

Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately). THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.

I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.

Clinton, who won.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately). THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.

I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.

That would be interesting, especially since Calli would have to give up a portion of their 55 EC votes.

 

[Auld Phart]

Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately). THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.

I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.

I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.

Hillary would have had fewer in Ca, NY, Trump fewer in Tx, Florida.

Odds are, Trump would still have had the majority