This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
CONSERVATIVES are the ones that are outraged? Really? We're the ones calling for a recount? We're the ones calling for the Electoral College members to ignore the election and elect Hillary? We're the ones protesting in the street, breaking #### and beating people up because we lost the election?
Exactly a political mandate would look more like if the populace gave the Executive Branch, the House of representatives, the Senate, the supreme court appointment, the majority of governorships to the same party. It would totally not be a political mandate if a couple million Republicans didn't vote in California because it is absolutely pointless for them to do so and that gave the "perception" that this was not a complete blowout on every higher level of government by one party.
In the EC version of the World Series, not all wins are equal. Winning a game in Illinois counts more than winning a game in Ohio. So, Francona started his best pitchers at Wrigley to take 2 out of 3. Maybe the Indians did win the World Series!
The electoral college isn't what makes the US a democratic republic nor is an important way for states to exercise their power. Abolishing it will not create a direct democracy.
The people in those states shouldn't have their votes count less just because the states themselves are more populous.
Sorry Max....this is delusional. You know as well as I do that there would have been many scorched earth types. He had been laying the ground work with his "rigged election" talk from the very beginning.
I'd rather their votes count less than presidential candidates ignoring most the country.
The people arent voting, the states are. And the states are weighted based on population.
Ignoring in what sense? Why does actually holding events where they make the same speech day after day matter in an age of YouTube and soundbyte driven tv?
This is so wrong. You can't see that the election would always come down to a few populous states. Having to try and win as many states as possible is better for all of us than focusing on just a few
I seriously doubt that the vast majority of GOP types would be calling for manipulating or abolishing the Electoral College.
That's delusional...whenever a side wins the popular vote and loses the electoral vote there will be questions asked.
It will take a constitutional amendment. What's the chance of that happening? Was the last 3 resolutions in 2005 and 2009 close?
I was looking forward to it, but Hillary decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
Not sure if this worthless generic term was used on purpose, but I am referring specifically to those actively supporting Trump. You're in a world of your own if you don't think they wouldn't have gone scorched earth. The writing was on the wall
No it wouldn't. We've discussed this before. It would only take all of the big states to agree. If California, Texas, New York, Florida, and perhaps 1-2 others all agreed to support the popular winner no matter what, that would end the electoral college.
Only take the states that will benefit the most from the change to agree? This makes no sense to me.
California has a better chance to secede than this.
Whether it makes sense to you or not, that's all it would take. Of course it's easier said than done. For instance, if the pledge had been made before this election, it would mean that Texas and Florida would have to ignore the majority of their voters and have the electors go with Hillary. Which is, to put it mildly, unrealistic.
According to this article and many others it would require an anmendment.
Have you read the Compact Clause of the Constitution? They will need consent of Congress even if enough states sign up, unless the Supreme Court agrees to ignore the clause.
This is actually wrong. I heard some ivy league lawyer on the radio talking about this the other day. He say that the compact between several states to collude to use the popular vote to determine where electoral votes goes while a clever end around the constitution would not hold up under a court challenge. The reason being something about taking away voters rights or something. Basically if say Iowa agrees to this scheme and Iowa votes for something in iowas interest but because they are colluding with New Jersey who carries the popular vote you have essentially stripped the citizens of Iowa of their representation, or at the least the government ceded their rights to New Jersey.
Ironically there are zero complaining about electoral college prior to the election.
The National Popular Vote Compact that has been entered into by several states is in fact a compact between states.
If we get a bunch of "living constitution" types on the SC, it doesn't matter. They will creatively "interpret" the constitution to allow it.
Clinton needs to go to jail. She is the worst POS to ever run for office.
This is classic Tim. He hears something and it fits his belief so he runs with it while ignoring all the information put in front of him. Then says....you're wrong I think. What a joke
If they ever voted for someone different than their people you may have a point. It is a bad weighting
Most of the country is ignored either way. Hell, most people of voting age don't even vote.
Seriously the Democrats need to get their own house in order instead of complaining about the rules of the game they've been playing for 200 years already.
That is misleading and has been pointed out to you before. Yes she got more votes but he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, if he had been he would have had more votes than Hillary.
