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.
Listen, you can make your claims all you want, you believe in your facts, but there is no way in hell, 3 million illegals voted and Trump still won...does that make sense to you....but I absolutely refuse to engage you in this nonsense, you people live in an alternative world, and I wish you well...I chose to engage and live among the sane...have a nice day, idiotYes he did when you delete all of the irregular votes throughout the country. Sorry you don't get to add illegal voters to the count when it is all said and done.not true, but facts mean nothing to you nuts....listen, Trump did not get the popular vote....(sigh)and New Hampshire isn't even on the list of known election fraudsters.
Judicial Watch Warns 11 States to Clean Voter Registration Lists or Face Federal Lawsuit - Judicial Watch
- Alabama: Choctaw, Conecuh, Greene, Hale, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Perry, Washington, Wilcox.
- Florida: Clay, Flagler, Okaloosa, Osceola, Santa Rosa, St. Johns.
- Georgia: Bryan, Columbia, DeKalb, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Lee, Marion, McIntosh, Oconee.
- Illinois: Alexander, Bureau, Cass, Clark, Crawford, DuPage, Franklin, Grundy, Hardin, Henderson, Jefferson, Jersey, Massac, McHenry, Mercer, Monroe, Pulaski, Rock Island, Sangamon, Scott, Union, Wabash, Washington, White.
- Iowa: Scott, Johnson.
- Kentucky: Anderson, Bath, Boone, Breathitt, Caldwell, Carlisle, Cumberland, Fulton, Gallatin, Greenup, Hancock, Henry, Jefferson, Jessamine, Kenton, Livingston, Magoffin, McCracken, Menifee, Mercer, Monroe, Oldham, Powell, Russell, Scott, Spencer, Trigg, Trimble, Wolfe, Woodford.
- Maryland: Montgomery.
- New Jersey: Essex, Somerset.
- New York: Nassau.
- North Carolina: Buncombe, Camden, Chatham, Cherokee, Clay, Dare, Durham, Guilford, Madison, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Orange, Union, Watauga, Yancey.
- Tennessee: Williamson.
and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.
I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.
Call me crazy, but I find the idea of LA, NY and Chicago choosing every President from here on out less than appealing.
Good luck with that Constitutional amendment.
Okay, I'll cal you crazy.
The reason I call you crazy is because you don't understand how other systems work.
With PR, LA, NY and Chicago would not control the country.
Chicago has a population of 2.6 million, LA 3.7 million and NY 8 million,
That's 14.3 million population out of 320 million. There is no way in hell that these three cities would control the election. They make up such a small percentage.
If you look at countries with proportional representation you see more parties and more choice. Perhaps a party like the Democratic Party would do well in some places, but every vote counts. A farmer in Wyoming would have as much a vote as anyone else.
In the US currently only 20% of the voters have a vote that actually really counts towards the election. Only THREE of these states are in the bottom 50% for population size. So, 20% of people decide the election for the rest of the people.
If a Republican votes Republican in California, their vote is meaningless. It doesn't help the Republicans, it doesn't give this person a voice at all.
When a CDU supporter votes in Bremen, the city with the highest SPD (left wing) vote in the country, their vote COUNTS towards the make up of parliament. The same for a SPD voter in Bavaria which has the highest CDU/CSU vote in the country.
That's the difference.
If you don't understand the system, you'll believe that PR will lead to cities having power. But it's just not the case. PR is one person, one vote and that's how it works. The PEOPLE decide the govt, unlike the US election where the President is chosen by 20% of the voters.
Oh I understand perfectly.
Again, good luck with that Constitutional amendment.
Ain't gonna happen.
No, I doubt it would happen.
Why?
Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those fucking voters, hey?
Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?Call me crazy, but I find the idea of LA, NY and Chicago choosing every President from here on out less than appealing.
Good luck with that Constitutional amendment.
Okay, I'll cal you crazy.
The reason I call you crazy is because you don't understand how other systems work.
With PR, LA, NY and Chicago would not control the country.
Chicago has a population of 2.6 million, LA 3.7 million and NY 8 million,
That's 14.3 million population out of 320 million. There is no way in hell that these three cities would control the election. They make up such a small percentage.
If you look at countries with proportional representation you see more parties and more choice. Perhaps a party like the Democratic Party would do well in some places, but every vote counts. A farmer in Wyoming would have as much a vote as anyone else.
In the US currently only 20% of the voters have a vote that actually really counts towards the election. Only THREE of these states are in the bottom 50% for population size. So, 20% of people decide the election for the rest of the people.
If a Republican votes Republican in California, their vote is meaningless. It doesn't help the Republicans, it doesn't give this person a voice at all.
When a CDU supporter votes in Bremen, the city with the highest SPD (left wing) vote in the country, their vote COUNTS towards the make up of parliament. The same for a SPD voter in Bavaria which has the highest CDU/CSU vote in the country.
That's the difference.
If you don't understand the system, you'll believe that PR will lead to cities having power. But it's just not the case. PR is one person, one vote and that's how it works. The PEOPLE decide the govt, unlike the US election where the President is chosen by 20% of the voters.
Oh I understand perfectly.
Again, good luck with that Constitutional amendment.
Ain't gonna happen.
No, I doubt it would happen.
Why?
Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those fucking voters, hey?
Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
The only advantage rural states should have is that all states only get two electors for each Senator they have...(plus one elector for every house of representatives they have which goes by population) that means Montana with a million citizens gets two electors and California with 30 million people get only two electors....that and that alone is what the founders intended as the advantage to rural and smaller populated states....
And THAT is not how the Parties have set it up in all States but 2 over the years after the founders....they manipulated the system by using Winner takes all electors, eliminating any chance of any third party candidate from getting even 1 elector in their tallies, even if the third party gets millions of votes, tens of millions of votes nation wide....they get zero electors.
The exception is from a state like mine and one other...where we give each candidate, the electors they won, through how our state's population voted....plus the winner of the entire state population gets theadditional two electors the State was allocated for their two Senators that's how it should be for all states....that's how it was in the beginning, when the founders first created the system.
and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?Okay, I'll cal you crazy.
The reason I call you crazy is because you don't understand how other systems work.
With PR, LA, NY and Chicago would not control the country.
Chicago has a population of 2.6 million, LA 3.7 million and NY 8 million,
That's 14.3 million population out of 320 million. There is no way in hell that these three cities would control the election. They make up such a small percentage.
If you look at countries with proportional representation you see more parties and more choice. Perhaps a party like the Democratic Party would do well in some places, but every vote counts. A farmer in Wyoming would have as much a vote as anyone else.
In the US currently only 20% of the voters have a vote that actually really counts towards the election. Only THREE of these states are in the bottom 50% for population size. So, 20% of people decide the election for the rest of the people.
If a Republican votes Republican in California, their vote is meaningless. It doesn't help the Republicans, it doesn't give this person a voice at all.
When a CDU supporter votes in Bremen, the city with the highest SPD (left wing) vote in the country, their vote COUNTS towards the make up of parliament. The same for a SPD voter in Bavaria which has the highest CDU/CSU vote in the country.
That's the difference.
If you don't understand the system, you'll believe that PR will lead to cities having power. But it's just not the case. PR is one person, one vote and that's how it works. The PEOPLE decide the govt, unlike the US election where the President is chosen by 20% of the voters.
Oh I understand perfectly.
Again, good luck with that Constitutional amendment.
Ain't gonna happen.
No, I doubt it would happen.
Why?
Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those fucking voters, hey?
Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
The only advantage rural states should have is that all states only get two electors for each Senator they have...(plus one elector for every house of representatives they have which goes by population) that means Montana with a million citizens gets two electors and California with 30 million people get only two electors....that and that alone is what the founders intended as the advantage to rural and smaller populated states....
And THAT is not how the Parties have set it up in all States but 2 over the years after the founders....they manipulated the system by using Winner takes all electors, eliminating any chance of any third party candidate from getting even 1 elector in their tallies, even if the third party gets millions of votes, tens of millions of votes nation wide....they get zero electors.
The exception is from a state like mine and one other...where we give each candidate, the electors they won, through how our state's population voted....plus the winner of the entire state population gets theadditional two electors the State was allocated for their two Senators that's how it should be for all states....that's how it was in the beginning, when the founders first created the system.
Because we're a country of united states. It's right there in the name.
And this is a good thing. The states decide how they want to live, so you get to leave one state and live in another if you like. This concept of Federalism is our law...such an important one that you'll have to amend the Constitution to change it. Not...gonna...happen.
the constitution does not have to be amended to change it, MY STATE does it how the founders intended...my state does not manipulate their electors to protect the two existing political parties...the electors congress allocates to each state for their population are equal to the house of representatives each state has in congress....those electors represent the state's population, they get one elector for every congressional district, then congress allots 2 additional electors to each state representing each state's 2 senators...senators represent their State, these electors represent their state...and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?Okay, I'll cal you crazy.
The reason I call you crazy is because you don't understand how other systems work.
With PR, LA, NY and Chicago would not control the country.
Chicago has a population of 2.6 million, LA 3.7 million and NY 8 million,
That's 14.3 million population out of 320 million. There is no way in hell that these three cities would control the election. They make up such a small percentage.
If you look at countries with proportional representation you see more parties and more choice. Perhaps a party like the Democratic Party would do well in some places, but every vote counts. A farmer in Wyoming would have as much a vote as anyone else.
In the US currently only 20% of the voters have a vote that actually really counts towards the election. Only THREE of these states are in the bottom 50% for population size. So, 20% of people decide the election for the rest of the people.
If a Republican votes Republican in California, their vote is meaningless. It doesn't help the Republicans, it doesn't give this person a voice at all.
When a CDU supporter votes in Bremen, the city with the highest SPD (left wing) vote in the country, their vote COUNTS towards the make up of parliament. The same for a SPD voter in Bavaria which has the highest CDU/CSU vote in the country.
That's the difference.
If you don't understand the system, you'll believe that PR will lead to cities having power. But it's just not the case. PR is one person, one vote and that's how it works. The PEOPLE decide the govt, unlike the US election where the President is chosen by 20% of the voters.
Oh I understand perfectly.
Again, good luck with that Constitutional amendment.
Ain't gonna happen.
No, I doubt it would happen.
Why?
Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those fucking voters, hey?
Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
The only advantage rural states should have is that all states only get two electors for each Senator they have...(plus one elector for every house of representatives they have which goes by population) that means Montana with a million citizens gets two electors and California with 30 million people get only two electors....that and that alone is what the founders intended as the advantage to rural and smaller populated states....
And THAT is not how the Parties have set it up in all States but 2 over the years after the founders....they manipulated the system by using Winner takes all electors, eliminating any chance of any third party candidate from getting even 1 elector in their tallies, even if the third party gets millions of votes, tens of millions of votes nation wide....they get zero electors.
The exception is from a state like mine and one other...where we give each candidate, the electors they won, through how our state's population voted....plus the winner of the entire state population gets theadditional two electors the State was allocated for their two Senators that's how it should be for all states....that's how it was in the beginning, when the founders first created the system.
Because we're a country of united states. It's right there in the name.
And this is a good thing. The states decide how they want to live, so you get to leave one state and live in another if you like. This concept of Federalism is our law...such an important one that you'll have to amend the Constitution to change it. Not...gonna...happen.
the constitution does not have to be amended to change it, MY STATE does it how the founders intended...my state does not manipulate their electors to protect the two existing political parties...the electors congress allocates to each state for their population are equal to the house of representatives each state has in congress....those electors represent the state's population, they get one elector for every congressional district, then congress allots 2 additional electors to each state representing each state's 2 senators...senators represent their State, these electors represent their state...and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?Oh I understand perfectly.
Again, good luck with that Constitutional amendment.
Ain't gonna happen.
No, I doubt it would happen.
Why?
Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those fucking voters, hey?
Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
The only advantage rural states should have is that all states only get two electors for each Senator they have...(plus one elector for every house of representatives they have which goes by population) that means Montana with a million citizens gets two electors and California with 30 million people get only two electors....that and that alone is what the founders intended as the advantage to rural and smaller populated states....
And THAT is not how the Parties have set it up in all States but 2 over the years after the founders....they manipulated the system by using Winner takes all electors, eliminating any chance of any third party candidate from getting even 1 elector in their tallies, even if the third party gets millions of votes, tens of millions of votes nation wide....they get zero electors.
The exception is from a state like mine and one other...where we give each candidate, the electors they won, through how our state's population voted....plus the winner of the entire state population gets theadditional two electors the State was allocated for their two Senators that's how it should be for all states....that's how it was in the beginning, when the founders first created the system.
Because we're a country of united states. It's right there in the name.
And this is a good thing. The states decide how they want to live, so you get to leave one state and live in another if you like. This concept of Federalism is our law...such an important one that you'll have to amend the Constitution to change it. Not...gonna...happen.
this is where the smaller or rural states get their advantage over the highly populated states...
what maine does is tally their citizen's vote by congressional district....I think we only have 2 congressional/electoral voting districts....Trump won 1 congressional/electoral district, and Clinton won the other congressional/ electoral district, Trump got 1 electoral vote, and Clinton got 1 electoral vote...but the overall state popular vote went to Clinton, she edged him out...so she won the state....and the 2 electoral votes maine was given to represent our senators in congress who represent the State's will, went to Hillary....so Hillary got 3 electors and Trump got 1 elector.
Trump would have gotten ZERO electoral votes in the way most parties have set up their State electoral votes....which is WINNER TAKES ALL electoral votes.... by doing it that way, it protects the two parties, and PREVENTS third parties from receiving any electoral votes...we've had independent presidential candidates that have received 10's of millions of votes....I believe it was 27 million popular votes, but did not receive one single itty bitty Electoral vote..... and THAT is what is wrong, that is what the parties changed over the years in State governments to protect themselves from third party candidates.... Maine, imo, does it the RIGHT WAY, the fairer way, and more as our founders, primarily Adams and Madison, who created the electoral college, intended....again, imo.
yes, it works and does give smaller states a little more weight than if it went by population alone...like my state, we only get 2 electors to represent our population and in congress we have two representatives...., then Maine gets two electors representing our Senators....so we, a very small state, by getting two more electors to represent our State overall (senators) we get 50% MORE electoral votes than our population calls for....the constitution does not have to be amended to change it, MY STATE does it how the founders intended...my state does not manipulate their electors to protect the two existing political parties...the electors congress allocates to each state for their population are equal to the house of representatives each state has in congress....those electors represent the state's population, they get one elector for every congressional district, then congress allots 2 additional electors to each state representing each state's 2 senators...senators represent their State, these electors represent their state...and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?No, I doubt it would happen.
Why?
Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those fucking voters, hey?
Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
The only advantage rural states should have is that all states only get two electors for each Senator they have...(plus one elector for every house of representatives they have which goes by population) that means Montana with a million citizens gets two electors and California with 30 million people get only two electors....that and that alone is what the founders intended as the advantage to rural and smaller populated states....
And THAT is not how the Parties have set it up in all States but 2 over the years after the founders....they manipulated the system by using Winner takes all electors, eliminating any chance of any third party candidate from getting even 1 elector in their tallies, even if the third party gets millions of votes, tens of millions of votes nation wide....they get zero electors.
The exception is from a state like mine and one other...where we give each candidate, the electors they won, through how our state's population voted....plus the winner of the entire state population gets theadditional two electors the State was allocated for their two Senators that's how it should be for all states....that's how it was in the beginning, when the founders first created the system.
Because we're a country of united states. It's right there in the name.
And this is a good thing. The states decide how they want to live, so you get to leave one state and live in another if you like. This concept of Federalism is our law...such an important one that you'll have to amend the Constitution to change it. Not...gonna...happen.
this is where the smaller or rural states get their advantage over the highly populated states...
what maine does is tally their citizen's vote by congressional district....I think we only have 2 congressional/electoral voting districts....Trump won 1 congressional/electoral district, and Clinton won the other congressional/ electoral district, Trump got 1 electoral vote, and Clinton got 1 electoral vote...but the overall state popular vote went to Clinton, she edged him out...so she won the state....and the 2 electoral votes maine was given to represent our senators in congress who represent the State's will, went to Hillary....so Hillary got 3 electors and Trump got 1 elector.
Trump would have gotten ZERO electoral votes in the way most parties have set up their State electoral votes....which is WINNER TAKES ALL electoral votes.... by doing it that way, it protects the two parties, and PREVENTS third parties from receiving any electoral votes...we've had independent presidential candidates that have received 10's of millions of votes....I believe it was 27 million popular votes, but did not receive one single itty bitty Electoral vote..... and THAT is what is wrong, that is what the parties changed over the years in State governments to protect themselves from third party candidates.... Maine, imo, does it the RIGHT WAY, the fairer way, and more as our founders, primarily Adams and Madison, who created the electoral college, intended....again, imo.
Do smaller or rural states get an advantage though? Has the system worked out how the Founders intended?
No, is the simple answer.
Only 12 states get to decide the election, and only 3 of those are in the bottom half of the population statistics. 4 of them are in the top 10.
So, it doesn't work as the founders want it.
It works as the Republicans want it.
Democrats will do anything to win. Crooks.Yep....voters who vote and then vanish into thin air.......
New Data: Illegal Voters May Have Decided New Hampshire in 2016
Newly available data is casting doubt on the integrity of the presidential election in New Hampshire in 2016, which Hillary Clinton won by just over 2,700 votes.
Over 6,000 voters in New Hampshire had used same-day voter registration procedures to register and vote simultaneously for president. The current New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Shawn Jasper, sought and obtained data about what happened to these 6,000 "new" New Hampshire voters who showed up on Election Day.
It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.
Of those 6,000, only 1,014 have ever obtained New Hampshire driver's licenses. Of the 5,526 voters who never obtained a New Hampshire driver's license, a mere three percent have registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation received information that 70 percent of the same-day registrants used out-of-state photo ID to vote in the 2016
yes, it works and does give smaller states a little more weight than if it went by population alone...like my state, we only get 2 electors to represent our population and in congress we have two representatives...., then Maine gets two electors representing our Senators....so we, a very small state, by getting two more electors to represent our State overall (senators) we get 50% MORE electoral votes than our population calls for....the constitution does not have to be amended to change it, MY STATE does it how the founders intended...my state does not manipulate their electors to protect the two existing political parties...the electors congress allocates to each state for their population are equal to the house of representatives each state has in congress....those electors represent the state's population, they get one elector for every congressional district, then congress allots 2 additional electors to each state representing each state's 2 senators...senators represent their State, these electors represent their state...and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
The only advantage rural states should have is that all states only get two electors for each Senator they have...(plus one elector for every house of representatives they have which goes by population) that means Montana with a million citizens gets two electors and California with 30 million people get only two electors....that and that alone is what the founders intended as the advantage to rural and smaller populated states....
And THAT is not how the Parties have set it up in all States but 2 over the years after the founders....they manipulated the system by using Winner takes all electors, eliminating any chance of any third party candidate from getting even 1 elector in their tallies, even if the third party gets millions of votes, tens of millions of votes nation wide....they get zero electors.
The exception is from a state like mine and one other...where we give each candidate, the electors they won, through how our state's population voted....plus the winner of the entire state population gets theadditional two electors the State was allocated for their two Senators that's how it should be for all states....that's how it was in the beginning, when the founders first created the system.
Because we're a country of united states. It's right there in the name.
And this is a good thing. The states decide how they want to live, so you get to leave one state and live in another if you like. This concept of Federalism is our law...such an important one that you'll have to amend the Constitution to change it. Not...gonna...happen.
this is where the smaller or rural states get their advantage over the highly populated states...
what maine does is tally their citizen's vote by congressional district....I think we only have 2 congressional/electoral voting districts....Trump won 1 congressional/electoral district, and Clinton won the other congressional/ electoral district, Trump got 1 electoral vote, and Clinton got 1 electoral vote...but the overall state popular vote went to Clinton, she edged him out...so she won the state....and the 2 electoral votes maine was given to represent our senators in congress who represent the State's will, went to Hillary....so Hillary got 3 electors and Trump got 1 elector.
Trump would have gotten ZERO electoral votes in the way most parties have set up their State electoral votes....which is WINNER TAKES ALL electoral votes.... by doing it that way, it protects the two parties, and PREVENTS third parties from receiving any electoral votes...we've had independent presidential candidates that have received 10's of millions of votes....I believe it was 27 million popular votes, but did not receive one single itty bitty Electoral vote..... and THAT is what is wrong, that is what the parties changed over the years in State governments to protect themselves from third party candidates.... Maine, imo, does it the RIGHT WAY, the fairer way, and more as our founders, primarily Adams and Madison, who created the electoral college, intended....again, imo.
Do smaller or rural states get an advantage though? Has the system worked out how the Founders intended?
No, is the simple answer.
Only 12 states get to decide the election, and only 3 of those are in the bottom half of the population statistics. 4 of them are in the top 10.
So, it doesn't work as the founders want it.
It works as the Republicans want it.
then take California, whose population and congressional seats gets allotted 53 electors to represent their huge population, then gets 2 additional electors to represent their 2 senators for the state....so they get ONLY 3.6% MORE electoral votes on top of what their population calls for....so by these 2 extra electors, Maine has 50% more electors than their population calls for and California by only getting 2 extra for their 2 senators, is only 3.6% more than their population calls for.... THAT gives smaller states an edge over larger states... and if you add up a bunch of states in fly over country and small populated states like us together, all getting 2 extra electoral votes that their population do not call for...it can bring a winner when the popular vote does not call for it. I have no problem with that...no problem giving the small populated States a wee bit more weight than what they deserve to have....
my problem is how the electors each state is given, to be added together to come up with 270 electoral votes to win, DO NOT represent the population within each State....State parties manipulated the electoral system to not represent the populations in their State by making electors ALL GO TO THE WINNER within the state,...so the runner up gets none from these states, in our overall electoral count for president...the electors are NOT allocated to the candidate that won them thru the popular vote in their state's election....they take all of the electors and give them ALL to the winner of the state instead of allocating them proportionately to the candidates....and THAT is what has messed up the electoral college, and the original intent of our founders.
Democrats will do anything to win. Crooks.Yep....voters who vote and then vanish into thin air.......
New Data: Illegal Voters May Have Decided New Hampshire in 2016
Newly available data is casting doubt on the integrity of the presidential election in New Hampshire in 2016, which Hillary Clinton won by just over 2,700 votes.
Over 6,000 voters in New Hampshire had used same-day voter registration procedures to register and vote simultaneously for president. The current New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Shawn Jasper, sought and obtained data about what happened to these 6,000 "new" New Hampshire voters who showed up on Election Day.
It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.
Of those 6,000, only 1,014 have ever obtained New Hampshire driver's licenses. Of the 5,526 voters who never obtained a New Hampshire driver's license, a mere three percent have registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation received information that 70 percent of the same-day registrants used out-of-state photo ID to vote in the 2016
What system is that ? Federalism?Democrats will do anything to win. Crooks.Yep....voters who vote and then vanish into thin air.......
New Data: Illegal Voters May Have Decided New Hampshire in 2016
Newly available data is casting doubt on the integrity of the presidential election in New Hampshire in 2016, which Hillary Clinton won by just over 2,700 votes.
Over 6,000 voters in New Hampshire had used same-day voter registration procedures to register and vote simultaneously for president. The current New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Shawn Jasper, sought and obtained data about what happened to these 6,000 "new" New Hampshire voters who showed up on Election Day.
It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.
Of those 6,000, only 1,014 have ever obtained New Hampshire driver's licenses. Of the 5,526 voters who never obtained a New Hampshire driver's license, a mere three percent have registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation received information that 70 percent of the same-day registrants used out-of-state photo ID to vote in the 2016
Says someone who wants to keep a system in place that is biased towards their own party.
See Constitution of the United States of America. Trump won against an establishment machine politician. The Constitution worked for the people.Listen, you can make your claims all you want, you believe in your facts, but there is no way in hell, 3 million illegals voted and Trump still won...does that make sense to you....but I absolutely refuse to engage you in this nonsense, you people live in an alternative world, and I wish you well...I chose to engage and live among the sane...have a nice day, idiotYes he did when you delete all of the irregular votes throughout the country. Sorry you don't get to add illegal voters to the count when it is all said and done.not true, but facts mean nothing to you nuts....listen, Trump did not get the popular vote....(sigh)and New Hampshire isn't even on the list of known election fraudsters.
Judicial Watch Warns 11 States to Clean Voter Registration Lists or Face Federal Lawsuit - Judicial Watch
- Alabama: Choctaw, Conecuh, Greene, Hale, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Perry, Washington, Wilcox.
- Florida: Clay, Flagler, Okaloosa, Osceola, Santa Rosa, St. Johns.
- Georgia: Bryan, Columbia, DeKalb, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Lee, Marion, McIntosh, Oconee.
- Illinois: Alexander, Bureau, Cass, Clark, Crawford, DuPage, Franklin, Grundy, Hardin, Henderson, Jefferson, Jersey, Massac, McHenry, Mercer, Monroe, Pulaski, Rock Island, Sangamon, Scott, Union, Wabash, Washington, White.
- Iowa: Scott, Johnson.
- Kentucky: Anderson, Bath, Boone, Breathitt, Caldwell, Carlisle, Cumberland, Fulton, Gallatin, Greenup, Hancock, Henry, Jefferson, Jessamine, Kenton, Livingston, Magoffin, McCracken, Menifee, Mercer, Monroe, Oldham, Powell, Russell, Scott, Spencer, Trigg, Trimble, Wolfe, Woodford.
- Maryland: Montgomery.
- New Jersey: Essex, Somerset.
- New York: Nassau.
- North Carolina: Buncombe, Camden, Chatham, Cherokee, Clay, Dare, Durham, Guilford, Madison, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Orange, Union, Watauga, Yancey.
- Tennessee: Williamson.
Bunch of New Yorkers have polluted Vermont and New Hampshire with their communist presence in those states. Carpetbaggers.Bad is it is in New Hampshire, Vermont was an order of magnitude worse. The point is fast approaching where more private property in Vermont is owned by rich New York Democrats than by local people Democrats who particularly enjoy voting in both New York AND Vermont. It's been that way in Vermont so long that people just don't even notice anymore. It's newer, so more noticeable in New Hampshire but you'll get used to it.
Unless some folks get to do serious jail time.
Not bloody likely.
What system is that ? Federalism?Democrats will do anything to win. Crooks.Yep....voters who vote and then vanish into thin air.......
New Data: Illegal Voters May Have Decided New Hampshire in 2016
Newly available data is casting doubt on the integrity of the presidential election in New Hampshire in 2016, which Hillary Clinton won by just over 2,700 votes.
Over 6,000 voters in New Hampshire had used same-day voter registration procedures to register and vote simultaneously for president. The current New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Shawn Jasper, sought and obtained data about what happened to these 6,000 "new" New Hampshire voters who showed up on Election Day.
It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.
Of those 6,000, only 1,014 have ever obtained New Hampshire driver's licenses. Of the 5,526 voters who never obtained a New Hampshire driver's license, a mere three percent have registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation received information that 70 percent of the same-day registrants used out-of-state photo ID to vote in the 2016
Says someone who wants to keep a system in place that is biased towards their own party.
and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?Oh I understand perfectly.
Again, good luck with that Constitutional amendment.
Ain't gonna happen.
No, I doubt it would happen.
Why?
Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those fucking voters, hey?
Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
The only advantage rural states should have is that all states only get two electors for each Senator they have...(plus one elector for every house of representatives they have which goes by population) that means Montana with a million citizens gets two electors and California with 30 million people get only two electors....that and that alone is what the founders intended as the advantage to rural and smaller populated states....
And THAT is not how the Parties have set it up in all States but 2 over the years after the founders....they manipulated the system by using Winner takes all electors, eliminating any chance of any third party candidate from getting even 1 elector in their tallies, even if the third party gets millions of votes, tens of millions of votes nation wide....they get zero electors.
The exception is from a state like mine and one other...where we give each candidate, the electors they won, through how our state's population voted....plus the winner of the entire state population gets theadditional two electors the State was allocated for their two Senators that's how it should be for all states....that's how it was in the beginning, when the founders first created the system.
Because we're a country of united states. It's right there in the name.
And this is a good thing. The states decide how they want to live, so you get to leave one state and live in another if you like. This concept of Federalism is our law...such an important one that you'll have to amend the Constitution to change it. Not...gonna...happen.
Not going to happen because special interests, like the Koch brothers, don't want it to happen. You have been enslaved, now move it or I'll whip you.
the constitution does not have to be amended to change it, MY STATE does it how the founders intended...my state does not manipulate their electors to protect the two existing political parties...the electors congress allocates to each state for their population are equal to the house of representatives each state has in congress....those electors represent the state's population, they get one elector for every congressional district, then congress allots 2 additional electors to each state representing each state's 2 senators...senators represent their State, these electors represent their state...and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?Oh I understand perfectly.
Again, good luck with that Constitutional amendment.
Ain't gonna happen.
No, I doubt it would happen.
Why?
Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those fucking voters, hey?
Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
The only advantage rural states should have is that all states only get two electors for each Senator they have...(plus one elector for every house of representatives they have which goes by population) that means Montana with a million citizens gets two electors and California with 30 million people get only two electors....that and that alone is what the founders intended as the advantage to rural and smaller populated states....
And THAT is not how the Parties have set it up in all States but 2 over the years after the founders....they manipulated the system by using Winner takes all electors, eliminating any chance of any third party candidate from getting even 1 elector in their tallies, even if the third party gets millions of votes, tens of millions of votes nation wide....they get zero electors.
The exception is from a state like mine and one other...where we give each candidate, the electors they won, through how our state's population voted....plus the winner of the entire state population gets theadditional two electors the State was allocated for their two Senators that's how it should be for all states....that's how it was in the beginning, when the founders first created the system.
Because we're a country of united states. It's right there in the name.
And this is a good thing. The states decide how they want to live, so you get to leave one state and live in another if you like. This concept of Federalism is our law...such an important one that you'll have to amend the Constitution to change it. Not...gonna...happen.
this is where the smaller or rural states get their advantage over the highly populated states...
what maine does is tally their citizen's vote by congressional district....I think we only have 2 congressional/electoral voting districts....Trump won 1 congressional/electoral district, and Clinton won the other congressional/ electoral district, Trump got 1 electoral vote, and Clinton got 1 electoral vote...but the overall state popular vote went to Clinton, she edged him out...so she won the state....and the 2 electoral votes maine was given to represent our senators in congress who represent the State's will, went to Hillary....so Hillary got 3 electors and Trump got 1 elector.
Trump would have gotten ZERO electoral votes in the way most parties have set up their State electoral votes....which is WINNER TAKES ALL electoral votes.... by doing it that way, it protects the two parties, and PREVENTS third parties from receiving any electoral votes...we've had independent presidential candidates that have received 10's of millions of votes....I believe it was 27 million popular votes, but did not receive one single itty bitty Electoral vote..... and THAT is what is wrong, that is what the parties changed over the years in State governments to protect themselves from third party candidates.... Maine, imo, does it the RIGHT WAY, the fairer way, and more as our founders, primarily Adams and Madison, who created the electoral college, intended....again, imo.
and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?No, I doubt it would happen.
Why?
Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those fucking voters, hey?
Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
The only advantage rural states should have is that all states only get two electors for each Senator they have...(plus one elector for every house of representatives they have which goes by population) that means Montana with a million citizens gets two electors and California with 30 million people get only two electors....that and that alone is what the founders intended as the advantage to rural and smaller populated states....
And THAT is not how the Parties have set it up in all States but 2 over the years after the founders....they manipulated the system by using Winner takes all electors, eliminating any chance of any third party candidate from getting even 1 elector in their tallies, even if the third party gets millions of votes, tens of millions of votes nation wide....they get zero electors.
The exception is from a state like mine and one other...where we give each candidate, the electors they won, through how our state's population voted....plus the winner of the entire state population gets theadditional two electors the State was allocated for their two Senators that's how it should be for all states....that's how it was in the beginning, when the founders first created the system.
Because we're a country of united states. It's right there in the name.
And this is a good thing. The states decide how they want to live, so you get to leave one state and live in another if you like. This concept of Federalism is our law...such an important one that you'll have to amend the Constitution to change it. Not...gonna...happen.
Not going to happen because special interests, like the Koch brothers, don't want it to happen. You have been enslaved, now move it or I'll whip you.
Yea, I'm enslaved by the Koch brothers.
You go with that.
The tinfoil hat...fabulous.
and why should a citizen's vote in a rural area, count more than a citizen's vote who chose to live in a metropolitan area? I thought it was ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....all men are created equal kind of thing?Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.
The only advantage rural states should have is that all states only get two electors for each Senator they have...(plus one elector for every house of representatives they have which goes by population) that means Montana with a million citizens gets two electors and California with 30 million people get only two electors....that and that alone is what the founders intended as the advantage to rural and smaller populated states....
And THAT is not how the Parties have set it up in all States but 2 over the years after the founders....they manipulated the system by using Winner takes all electors, eliminating any chance of any third party candidate from getting even 1 elector in their tallies, even if the third party gets millions of votes, tens of millions of votes nation wide....they get zero electors.
The exception is from a state like mine and one other...where we give each candidate, the electors they won, through how our state's population voted....plus the winner of the entire state population gets theadditional two electors the State was allocated for their two Senators that's how it should be for all states....that's how it was in the beginning, when the founders first created the system.
Because we're a country of united states. It's right there in the name.
And this is a good thing. The states decide how they want to live, so you get to leave one state and live in another if you like. This concept of Federalism is our law...such an important one that you'll have to amend the Constitution to change it. Not...gonna...happen.
Not going to happen because special interests, like the Koch brothers, don't want it to happen. You have been enslaved, now move it or I'll whip you.
Yea, I'm enslaved by the Koch brothers.
You go with that.
The tinfoil hat...fabulous.
Well, you know the beauty of the whole thing isn't it? They tell you how free you are, and you say "I'm free".
