Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

They understood that there is tyranny in democracy, so they designed the federal government as a republic. Not only that, but the more populous States were somewhat handicapped in their influence over the smaller States through the mechanism of the electoral college. Smart. Very smart:

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/why-we-have-the-electoral-college-hillarys-popular-vote-came-from-one-state/

Number of electoral votes won_____Popular vote total outside California

Trump: 306_____________________Trump: 58,474,401

Clinton: 232____________________Clinton: 57,064,530

Without the electoral college, Clinton would have carried the election by the addition of California as a popular vote. The other 49 States would have had no voice. That's a 'tyranny of the majority', or, more bluntly, a pure democracy. This is a system that was designed by committee more than 225 years ago by some very smart people.

robmull Loc: florida

Yes, LtL, our "Founders" helped God, a lot!!! The administration, their "lap-dog, state-run, alphabet channel" MSM, and their cousin, "Hollyweird," is trying to change the rules AFTER the game has been won, in a LANDSLIDE, EARTHQUAKE, election, by their "enemies, Bible, gun-clinging America" {BHO}. It's a little like trying to move the football "goal-post" to the 30 yard-lines because of (D)isasterous fumbles throughout the game, some near the end-zones; but the (D)eflated football they were using was NEVER to be mentioned!!! Hummmmmm. Oh, bad luck, Cynthia!!! And, FAT CHANCE!!! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP!!! "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!" Now; "DRAIN THAT {RADICAL SECULAR LIBERAL "REGRESSIVE"} SWAMP!!!"

Morgan

To truly be fair the electoral credits should be recalibrated for the changes in population, allowing the scales of a just voting system be fair an accurate. I don't know about you, but I like to feel my votes for something, verses now millions of votes don't count. It appears Americans are giving up on their own voting system for the reason of..."What difference does it make" Apathy is a country killer.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Well, actually, they are periodically adjusted based on the census:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/allocation.html

NEXT!

robmull Loc: florida

The "Electoral College," was designed for United States populations from 1 to infinity. No adjustment is necessary. And if the Demonrats now want to change the rules for elections to "Popular" votes, aLL the United States but California, Texas, New York and Florida will be totally ignored by campaigning politicians; just as our Founders {and God} explained and warned "US," a few centuries ago!!! And Mr. Trump STILL would have won because he'd be smart enough to know that the 46, "fly-over" states would not at all be important to win-over for the election; and just flown from Florida to Texas to California to New York, over and over again. No matter how amplified the loser radical liberal progressive protests grow, there will be NO, "DO-OVERS!!!" Hummmmmmmmmmm. The problem for (D)emonrats is big. The illegal voters would have a hard time hanging-out in most ANY of the "fly-over" states. It's quite easy for illegals to blend into populations in California, Florida, Texas and New York, but, Podunk Arkansas and/or Walla-Walla Washington {and the likes}, still adhere to our American "law and order." GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP!!! "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!" Now; "DRAIN THAT {RADICAL SECULAR LIBERAL "REGRESSIVE"} SWAMP!!!"

Morgan

She would not have won simply by winning one state...NY... ridiculous. You also said she won the popular vote, which she did, but that's not what your numbers show here. Just because she won the majority of the "peoples" vote does not equate to tyranny. It equates to the voice of PEOPLE... wanted.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Have you seen the map of how the election went? You seem to be saying that you believe that large population centers on both coasts, with Chicago thrown in should be able to decide who rules us all.
The electoral college was put in there to prevent that exact thing from happening.

A true democracy is 2 pedophiles, and 1 parent deciding the age of consent.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Of course, if that parent is exercising his second amendment right to keep and bear arms, those two pedophiles may have a little more regard for the legally imposed age of consent....

Morgan

How do you guys always twist things, is it in an attempt to show me being bias, when I was simply talking about things being fair. It should be quite easy and direct by the numbers of population yet there are discrepancies...why.

For example according to an electoral chart as of 2010 reapportionment

NY, with and estimate of 19mil. people had 27 votes - 2 now 25 electoral votes
Texas, has est. 25 mil. had 36 + 4 = will have ......................40
Florida, has est. 18 mil. had 27 + 2+ will have........................29~ 4 more than NY with 1 mil. less people
California has est. 37 mil. and only .......................................53

It should be clear cut ie. for every 500,000 there's one vote.
Thank you Larry you had me look into this.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

You want to go by population. Does rural America have no say?

kenjay Loc: Arkansas

kenjay Loc: Arkansas

Here is the map Archie.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Look, this is not rocket science. Why do so many people have trouble understanding this? The system is set up so that each State, regardless of overall population, has an effect on the outcome. This, by the way, is a good thing. It means that even the smallest States (such as Maine and Alaska) are not drowned out by the larger States (such as California and Texas).

Even with the electoral college, winning just 4 States; California, Texas, New York and Florida, is sufficient to send a candidate more than halfway to the winning goal of 272 electoral votes (151 votes in just those 4 States). That, I think, is plenty enough clout. Also, it only takes 12 States to elect a president, less than 1/4 of the total number of States.

If it bothers you that we have an electoral college to select our executive officers (President and Vice President), be glad I wasn't there at the 1787 constitutional convention. If I was there, we would have a single electoral vote per State, regardless of population. And yes, I really do believe in democracy, just not that 'majority rule' kind that says 51% get to make the rules for the other 49%. That is what we generally call 'tyranny'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/how-does-the-electoral-college-work.html?_r=0

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Here's how it currently stands. Interesting to note that the migration of electoral college votes also indicates the migration of actual people:

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

"In recent years, California has been turning into what amounts to a one-party state. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Californian's [sic] who registered as Democrats climbed by 1.1 million, while the number of registered Republicans dropped by almost 400,000.

What's more, many Republicans in the state had nobody to vote for in November.

There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California's congressional districts."

I think the photo at the top of the page says it all:

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/