This is why people voted against the far left

If you didn't know you were retarded, you might by the time you see all the down votes.

You've got more downvotes than me bud but I don't think you're stupid.

quote:

---

I don't think your stupid.

---

I'm sure you don't.

quote:

---

I agree about the hacking deal but I'm mainly talking about all the other stuff they're doing like trying to get the electoral college to vote against trump.

---

My bigger issue is the lack of honesty in really reforming our elections. The EC was envisioned at a time when we were an Atlantic Coastal Country and states were envisioned as picking the President as a way to ensure a check on federal oversight.

Those days are gone. Today states do not select, the voting population does. I think we should ultimately go to a popular vote. The problem is, the ones advocating it now would not be if the election had been different.

Changing this constitutionally would be a bear. But if enough states to get to 270 signed the compact that they would honor the national popular vote, it would work...

And I think it would not have changed the election this year, tbh. If anything, the current system yields itself to avoiding most of the larger states because without getting a majority in those states in popular vote, it is a waste of time.

Had the popular vote been the way we chose our President, I believe you would have seen much greater turnout among people who tend to not vote in the big states because they know the vote will not reach a majority in that state (like CA).

This also hurts the states, in my view. I think CA now has a Dem supermajority. In large part I think that is due to Republican vote being suppressed by the reality of the EC. The same could probably be said for states like Texas.

quote:

---

ok with that, too. Use a stupid system of electing a president, expect it to not go as planned.

---

Yes, because having Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City decide the election for the entire country is a much better option

quote:

---

Yes, because having Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City decide the election for the entire country is a much better option

---

What's wrong with everyone's vote counting the same? Why does someone that lives in Minot, ND get to have their vote count more than someone that lives in Redding, CA?

It is the United States, not the United State. Hence there is no popular vote decision criteria for President of the United States.

This is really simple. I honestly can't understand why people have an issue with it.

Once you go to the popular vote you end up with arguments like this: when you remove California, Trump won the remaining 49 states by 2 million votes. But because CA is deep blue and immensely populated, the nation now has to bend to the will of Californians. Regardless of the amount of merit you see in that argument, that's the type of argument you'll get. And you can imagine the permutations such an argument can go through.

There is no faster way to dissolve the United States of America than to go to a popular vote.

quote:

---

What's wrong with everyone's vote counting the same? Why does someone that lives in Minot, ND get to have their vote count more than someone that lives in Redding, CA?

---

T.I.L.- North Dakota has the same number of electoral votes as California

quote:

---

I'm all for the popular vote.

---

Horrible idea