straightUp Loc: California

Correct.


Partially correct... the popular vote of the citizens only determines WHICH electors are appointed, based on WHICH party wins the popular vote. The actual NUMBER of electors is determined by the number of representatives the state already has and that's where my issue lies.


Correct.


I seriously doubt half the population of ANY state is under 18. The U.S. Census Bureau says 22%. ('not exactly half)


Yes, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, their "best estimate" is 6.3% of the total population in California.


You incorrectly said that about California... I won't bother to verify this because I don't see how isolating Los Angeles makes any difference to your argument. 22% of Californians are under 18, Los Angeles is part of that.


Adults with half children? I'm not sure what that even means, but according to the U.S. Census Bureau New York has 19,849,399 people and 3% of them are under 18. It seems like you're trying to say half of the adults in New York are children.


Wait... THREE states? You only listed two. Do I really need to tell you that Los Angeles is not a state?


Well, some of your inputs are incorrect and as they say in my business, "garbage in, garbage out". Also, you are ignoring states like Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Hawaii, all of which Clinton won.

Rather than go through your complex and trashy calculations, why not just look up the popular vote? That is after all an official count of how EVERYONE in the country voted. 65,516,951 people voted for Clinton, 62,844,908 people voted for Trump. Simple.


No offense but this doesn't make any sense. It *seems* like you are talking about the process of choosing electors but that process varies from state to state. Electors are appointed by the parties, usually during their national conventions. So if a state has 9 representatives (so 9 electoral votes) each party appoints 9 potential electors of their own. Which of these electors get to cast a vote is determined by the general election. In *some* states, the party that wins by one popular vote wins ALL the electoral votes... So in my example, say the Republicans win by one popular vote, all 9 Republican electors get to vote and ALL of the Democrat electors sit out. Other states like Nebraska and Maine, split their electoral votes to be more democratic.

In any case, this process of one vote takes all is not how the president is ultimately elected.


Incorrect. Only 270 electoral votes are required to win the election. This is based on the total number of electoral votes, which is based on the total number of seats in Congress. The reason why Trump won is because he reached that number which actually happened BEFORE the votes in the Pacific time zone were even counted!

What makes this possible is once again the uneven distribution of representation. California has 55 electoral votes which isn't enough to change the 270 electoral votes required to win. But if Californians were represented equally, let's say the same as voters in Wyoming (I use these two states as my example because I already did the math) California would have 275 electoral votes... add that to the total and the number of electoral votes required to win would be 408, not 270.

So the 275 votes in California would have to be considered and, yes Clinton would have won.

So, you can count your blessings that Clinton didn't win, but don't try to fool me into thinking it's all straight math or that it's even justified. Trump won legally, that's about all you can say about it.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"So why do you insist that we stay in the union?" - straightUp

Easy!!!
After Mexico is greeted to come join Kakifornia; The cost of the wall on the Kalifornia border with the USA would make it impossible.
AND the flood of those escaping Kalifornia (just like Mexico) would be disastrous on sooo many levels.

BTW; I was born in Los Angeles, and still have my relatives there.
Some Californians do not deserve the ruining of their state.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

I have never understood the failure of imagination of the 'Civil War 2.0' folks. The idea that the coasts would somehow be starved out is ludicrous. Those coasts have plenty of money and industry to trade for food around the globe. It doesn't occur to them that they would be unable to sell their products unless shipped through 'enemy' territory.

straightUp Loc: California

Is that because the border between California, Nevada and Arizona is longer or because without dollars from California tax payers the funding would be insufficient?


LOL... I'm pretty sure it would be the other way around. The immigrants to California still far outnumber the immigrants FROM California by millions.


Which Californians are you referring too? California has a LOT of Republicans and a LOT of Democrats and they are ALL blaming each other for "ruining" their state.

Carol Kelly

Wrong! Obama would lead us directly to the New World Order and no red blooded American would want that. The UnitedNations police or army knocking down your door.
Does that sound interesting to you lefties. They’ll make no distinction between left and right. Continue and enjoy.

straightUp Loc: California

They DO seem to grasp at straws whenever the subject comes up.

straightUp Loc: California

So what do you call that genre of movie being projected onto the interior of your own forehead Carol?

BTW, the United Nations doesn't have an army or a police force.

Smedley_buzkill

"Are you not stating that BECAUSE Los Angeles County has more people that Blackhawk County, the people in Los Angeles should not get an even vote?"

I am saying that the people of Blackhawk County should not be forced to accept LA County's version of what is good for them. When you stated that... "I never suggested that ANYONE should matter less. This is the what YOU are saying every time you defend a system that gives sparsely populated areas bigger votes."
You are hoist on your own petard. You are saying EXACTLY what you accuse me of saying. Anytime you say the desires of a large urban area (pardon the expression) trumps the needs and desires of a more rural, more self-sufficient and more sparsely populated area you are stating your approval of the tyranny of the majority. Your entire premise of a majority is flawed since about 40% of the eligible voters did not participate. (I can pretty much guarantee they will participate in the bitching; but I digress.) More than a tyranny of the majority, you support a tyranny of the majority of active voters.
The purpose of the Electoral College, at least in part, is to prevent this. The Founders realized that in a popular vote driven system, the small, densely populated urban enclaves (such as they were) could force their will via their representatives on farm states with a smaller population. The same principle holds true today. The small town I live in has wants and needs far different from heavily urbanized SoCal, or much of the Northeast. Our needs, and our views are different. We require far less government and bureaucracy.

Smedley_buzkill

California taxpayers are not coughing up as much tax money as you think. California now leads the nation in both the number and percentage of homeless and poverty stricken. It seems there just isn't enough money to pay for every free lunch the Liberals who run the state have promised.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

It's funny isn't it....just a few years ago conservatives were all about the rights of states to leave the union. There was even talk of a convention of states, and the confederacy was lauded for implementing what conservatives argued was their right.

Now listen to you. Proving once again....where one stands depends on where one sits.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Another reason for Republicans to get out and vote in November;
It there any morality left in Democrat politicians?

Hannity said the same people were largely silent when it came to incidents involving the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and former President Bill Clinton.

"This is the same party of Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer," Hannity said. "When Democrats tell you they want to get to the truth... frankly, we've proven they're simply lying." - bmac

son of witless

" The U.S.A is secular. Deal with it. "

Only partially true. The US Constitution was not so much secular as it was non one religion, specifically non one branch of Christianity. Try reading the US Declaration of Independence. Try reading some of the addresses of President George Washington. You will find Divine References. These were men who went through a revolution against the most powerful empire on earth. They lost most of the battles in that war. If they had not believed in a higher power they could not have prevailed.

The Constitution was written not so much Atheist, as it was to stop inter religious conflict within the new nation. Read your history broadly, not selectively and then report back.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

It also specifies LEGAL VOTERS NOT POPULATION OR ILLEGAL ALIEN VOTERS.

Half of the population are children and not allowed counted as voters.

The Socialist Democrats are killing off millions of future voters with their stupid abortion law. But then there are not that many bright Socialist Democrats. Even the many failed Socialist countries that failed still can't get it through their heads no matter how many times or ways you add it up 2+2=4 it will never =5.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Have you ever seen the UN "peace keepers"?
The blue helmets?
Their convoys?
Ever wonder who their allegiance is too?
Not good for those that want a sovereign nation.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

And what if bull frogs had wings they wouldn't hurt their B-Hind when they jumped.

You claimed I left off a state. In your attempt to rush to discredit you missed the point like all good Socialist do.

I included New York And you responded that New York had only 3%children under age 18. Of your calculations that's about 595,481.97 children for 19,849,399 people. The national average is about HALF 1 child per 2 persons.

You must be only counting the lesbian and homosexual community you are farmilure with.

IT AIN'T BROKEN SO NO NEED TO FIX IT.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE AMERICAN WAY FEEL FREE TO MOVE TO THE SOCIALIST COUNTRY OF YOUR CHOICE.