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.
The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
Interesting. One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California. Wyoming has a population of about 580,000 and is worth 3 electoral college votes. That is 1 electoral college vote for every 193,000 people.
California has a population of 39.5 million, which is 68 times more than Wyoming. This means that California should have around 200 electoral college votes, if using the same ratio as Wyoming: 68 x 3 electoral votes = 204. Instead, California only has 55 electoral college votes.
This is completely unfair and the game is rigged to give Repubs a fighting chance in every Presidential election. If California was worth 200 electoral college votes like it should be, then Repubs would never have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential election ever again.
One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This is completely unfair
To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.
Trump already won. He needs to keep his eyes on the prize, and not let those who don't understand he beat the system at it's own game bother him.
You don't need to win the popular vote. You never did. You never will.
Small states are the one's who have gone to proportional electoral college voting. Nebraska with 5 EC votes, and Maine with 4.The only states that have done it don't lose from the existence of the electoral college. There is little chance that small states will do likewise.\
The best that can be hoped for is to eliminate the "winner take all" for a states electoral votes, as several states have already done.
The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
We argued that the Democratic nominations were complete farces and we were told that it didn’t matter, Hillary would have won even if it was fair. Don’t blame the Constitution for not having the foresight to imagine a critter as corrupt as Hillary.
Hillary is "corrupt", yet she still defeated Trump by 3 million votes. Probably a lot more than that when you factor in voter suppression.
So what does that say about how sorry Trump is that he couldn't win the popular vote against a flawed candidate like Hillary?
Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.
Trump already won. He needs to keep his eyes on the prize, and not let those who don't understand he beat the system at it's own game bother him.
You don't need to win the popular vote. You never did. You never will.
No candidate has ever intentionally lost the popular vote. It bothers Trump and all of his worthless voters.
Interesting. One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California. Wyoming has a population of about 580,000 and is worth 3 electoral college votes. That is 1 electoral college vote for every 193,000 people.
California has a population of 39.5 million, which is 68 times more than Wyoming. This means that California should have around 200 electoral college votes, if using the same ratio as Wyoming: 68 x 3 electoral votes = 204. Instead, California only has 55 electoral college votes.
This is completely unfair and the game is rigged to give Repubs a fighting chance in every Presidential election. If California was worth 200 electoral college votes like it should be, then Repubs would never have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential election ever again.
One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This is completely unfair
To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states?
I know you're really bad at math, but Wyoming's 3 EC votes is not 3 times California's 55 EC votes.
Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
Not according to the Constitution. Sorry.
And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.We argued that the Democratic nominations were complete farces and we were told that it didn’t matter, Hillary would have won even if it was fair. Don’t blame the Constitution for not having the foresight to imagine a critter as corrupt as Hillary.
Hillary is "corrupt", yet she still defeated Trump by 3 million votes. Probably a lot more than that when you factor in voter suppression.
So what does that say about how sorry Trump is that he couldn't win the popular vote against a flawed candidate like Hillary?
Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.
Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.
She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.
You don't need to win the popular vote. You never did. You never will.
No candidate has ever intentionally lost the popular vote. It bothers Trump and all of his worthless voters.
And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.Hillary is "corrupt", yet she still defeated Trump by 3 million votes. Probably a lot more than that when you factor in voter suppression.
So what does that say about how sorry Trump is that he couldn't win the popular vote against a flawed candidate like Hillary?
Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.
Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.
She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.
And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?
I agree with you, I was letting the nut, who you didn’t quote, the one I was actually responding to, that he needs to take it to court If he believes the law is unconstitutional. He has a silly argument and all he does is get on this board and cry, if he wants change then he needs to go try and change it or sue the government and see what happens and see how little he actually knows.
Suing would be a waste of time, money and a burden on the taxpayers. Because of the burden of amending the constitution, purposefully made to have a very high bar, he needs to start to get national support for such a change. As the change would be advantageous to fewer states than it would harm, the odds of those states cutting off their nose to spite their face, is between slim and none, and slim just left town.
The best that can be hoped for is to eliminate the "winner take all" for a states electoral votes, as several states have already done.
And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?
You don't need to win the popular vote. You never did. You never will.
No candidate has ever intentionally lost the popular vote. It bothers Trump and all of his worthless voters.
Trump's strategists may have done just that. Knowing to concentrate on the key "swing" states, the small states, and to ignore states you have little chance of winning. The "50 state" strategy is good from the standpoint of being president of all states in the united states, but it's not necessary to win.
It's like a chess game where you sacrifice your pieces in order to check-mate the king. Since he's the only piece that counts, and the object of the game.
That is an excellent idea.
All the big, liberal states should assign their EC votes by congressional district.
If it works out, we can talk about doing the same in conservative states in 20 years. Maybe.
We know she won in your imagination. However, reality differs.And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.
Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.
Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.
She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.
And in your reality everyone is a liar except for Jeff Sessions. So no one is perfect. But at least I'm smart, which you definitely are not.
You don't need to win the popular vote. You never did. You never will.
No candidate has ever intentionally lost the popular vote. It bothers Trump and all of his worthless voters.
Trump's strategists may have done just that. Knowing to concentrate on the key "swing" states, the small states, and to ignore states you have little chance of winning. The "50 state" strategy is good from the standpoint of being president of all states in the united states, but it's not necessary to win.
It's like a chess game where you sacrifice your pieces in order to check-mate the king. Since he's the only piece that counts, and the object of the game.
If that were true, then Trump wouldn't whine about losing the popular vote. He would be bragging about his "master strategy".
You give Trump way too much credit. This is the most incompetent White House ever assembled. Full of the same bumble fucks that were involved in his campaign.
One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This is completely unfair
To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states?
I know you're really bad at math, but Wyoming's 3 EC votes is not 3 times California's 55 EC votes.
Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
Not according to the Constitution. Sorry.
You simply don't get it, goober. You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios. Re-read my first post. And the Constitution does not address this. Sorry to keep pointing this out to you.
If that were true, then Trump wouldn't whine about losing the popular vote. He would be bragging about his "master strategy".
You give Trump way too much credit. This is the most incompetent White House ever assembled. Full of the same bumble fucks that were involved in his campaign.
That is an excellent idea.
All the big, liberal states should assign their EC votes by congressional district.
If it works out, we can talk about doing the same in conservative states in 20 years. Maybe.
That's as dumb as having the conservative states impose term limits on their congressmen, and if it works out, the liberal states would do the same.
And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.
Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.
Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.
She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.
And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?
No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.
What's fair is fair.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states?
I know you're really bad at math, but Wyoming's 3 EC votes is not 3 times California's 55 EC votes.
Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
Not according to the Constitution. Sorry.
You simply don't get it, goober. You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios. Re-read my first post. And the Constitution does not address this. Sorry to keep pointing this out to you.
You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios.
55:3, I understand ratios just fine.
You obviously can't read.
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
