oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

If the last election had turned out just the opposite I doubt they would be talking like that. Of course, many of them think the Founders sure did plan all of what has happened when they wrote the system for electing the President. This woman has it down to a T but I can sure see some of our Leaners responding to what she said.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/24/is-the-electoral-college-biased-against-democrats/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top5&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0dZNFpXTTRNakEwWWpabSIsInQiOiJ4M2szV1lTU1BhY25BSFZLb3BON2JFRTAzck4xK3ZNYjMrYmNubE45Rms4Ryt5VWxWNVdncm1xMEg4XC9kV3BcL3RXU1hCOVQ3d3lyNlJaSzdNWituczRQNjNmdWpZYnZrK1drd3RnTEFVdVRIMHFnME9zVHBpeG5ETUY5VGxFOEtsIn0%3D

Randy131 Loc: Florida

Strange how not one liberal, progressive, or Democrat said anything about the 'Electorial College' ever being biased when all the liberal biased mainstream media were saying that President Trump had absolutely no path to an electorial college vote win, and that Hillary Clinton was going to win by a landslide that would be so big that it would challenge the other record setting Presidential election wins.

The truth is that they are in denial, and have to find some type of excuse for their Presidential loss, because they just can't accept that the criminal Hillary Clinton was such a terrible candidadte, that many, many millions of their own Democrats voted for President Trump instead of the criminal Hillary Clinton, which caused their once great 'Electorial Colege' blue wall of rust belt states, turn red for President Trump, as 'ALL' the battleground states also turned red to elect President Trump.

These cry baby losers also ignore the fact that the Democratic Party has lost over 1,300 political seats to the Republican Party all across the USA in local, state, US house, US Senate, and the White House elections, and refuse to admit to the cause of all those losses, the biggest change ever in political power in just 8 years in US history.

Instead of trying to make all kinds of excuses, they need to look at themselves, and ask why the American people have turned away from them, and they might start by looking at why they forced all the American people to buy a healthcare plan that they didn't want or need, and promised the American people how great it was going to be, but if it had been so great, then they wouldn't have had to force anyone to purchase it, the American people would be fighting to purchase it, which they are not, because of all the lies they told the American people about Obamacare.

Look into your own souls for the reasons of all your enormous election losses, don't make excuses to blame others, when all the blame is your own.

kohler

Trump, October 11, 2017, on interview with Sean Hannity
“I would rather have the popular vote.”

Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),
Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL).

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

kohler

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

It changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

Morgan

If you look a the new counts and compare states for the electoral votes by population it's easy to see the discrepancies, notice the growth, in particular, Texas and California, where Ca. didn't get any new but Texas did, or Compare Fla. to NY., where though NY increased in population but lost 2 electoral votes. Interesting the blue versus the red states and the obvious favoritism. Through the corruption of gerrymandering, there are now many more new red states. This manipulation of the republicans leads many of us to believe we are headed for a one-party fascist country.

I also don't agree with the Texas and florida being unrepresented as their votes have increased.

Randy131 Loc: Florida

"IRONIC" isn't it! When the liberal biased mainstream media was projecting with all their rigged polls, liberals never do anything honestly, with integrity and honor, that Hillary Clinton was going to win in a landslide, and proclaimed that Donald Trump had absosuletly no path to an "Electorial College" win, you couldn't give a damn about the popular vote or the "Electorial College" republic system of electing our President, until your candidate lost.

Now you claim that the American people don't care who wins in their state. Really??? You want us to believe that when the American people take the trouble to do their civic duty and vote, that they don't care who wins in their state, when the Presidential election depends on who wins in the states to determine who will be our President, and anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't even be allowed to vote, because those facts are on an 8th grade civics lesson level. This reminds me, liberals always lie too.

You also like to brag that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, ignoring the voter fraud complaints that are proven every time we have an election, and after this last election, enough citizen voter groups have found that there were at least 7.5 million fraudulent votes cast, 2.5 million in the California counties of Los Angeles and San Diego only, and those 7.5 million were almost all cast for Hillary Clinton.

The Pennsylvania voter recount had to be stopped because in most all Democratic polling centers in the state, they had twice as many votes cast as they had reigistered voters, and the Democrats warned that the recounts would show this, and all the votes would then be disqualified in those polling centers that this took place, and since the outcome wouldn't be changed, the judge stopped the recount to save Democratic embarrassment, and investigations that would send many Democrats to jail, half of them probably innocent because they were unaware of how their bosses were conducting the voter fraud to have caused twice as many votes as registered voters.

This too was also the case reported in Michigan, where the voter recount was also stopped, and in both Michigan and Pennsylvania, it was the Democrats that sued to stop the recounts. But lacking all honesty, integrity, and honor, of course this would be denied and ignored by all liberals, but are now facts recorded in court cases in the states of Pennsylvania and Michigan. This exact same thing also happened in the Democratic polling centers in Wisconsin in the recall vote for Governor Walker, which he won anyway, and they did investigate afterward, and corrected the possibility of fraud to keep it from happening in the next election, the national Presidential Election, which President Trump won because of that lack of voter fraud, that was corrected because of what was found in the governor recall election.

Our republic style of electing our President will never be changed, because more than half our States are small population states, and it takes 35 States to vote for a Constitutional Amendment to make it officially accepted and written into the US Constitution, and those small States that are the majority of the 50 States, would lose what little clout they now have in electiing our Presidents, if they voted to change to a simple popular vote system, as the 'Founding Fathers' knew this and had to set up the "Electorial College" system in order to get all the original States to agree to it, and the small State people running their governments would have to be complete idiots to agree to changing to a popular vote system. It is also not a popular vote election that is required for a state to agree to a Constitutional Amendment, but the governing body of the State are the ones that votes for or against Constitutional Amendments. So quit your whining and crying, and play the game by the rules, that even our 8th grade students are aware of, as was Hillary Clinton and all the Democrats, who just failed to offer the Ameriocan people what they wanted, but by offering illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, which most Americans were against, Hillary Clinton did pick up 7.5 million fraudulent votes.

Randy131 Loc: Florida

Damn, every time you get on here and make a comment, you prove yourself to be uninformed and ignorant.

Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with electorial votes of the States, absolutely nothing. Listen and learn, and please check it out before making a fool of yourself again.

Electorial votes are set by a specific number of the population for each vote, determined by the national federal census taken every ten years, where the entire population of the USA is divided by the population of each State to determine how many electorial votes each State gets, When States populations decrease, as California's and New York's have, they lose electorial votes, and as States populations increase, as Texas and Florida's have, so do the number of electorial votes that those States get, and is determined every ten years when the national census is taken.

It doesn't matter in which areas those populations are assigned to in every State, which proves Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with it. Do you even know who invented Gerrymandering? Democrats, and then the federal government ordered it to be done in order to institute and form areas where there would be a majority of black people living, in order for black people to be able to get elected to the US Congress, another federal ordered racist segreagation rule, for the benefit of electing black politicians to State and local governments as well.

I've seen your comments before, you have Gerrymandering on the brain, get over it, the people's representatives elected in each State by the majority of the people are the ones who draw the voting lines, you seem not to trust the majority of the people and their representatives in your State, and I certainly hope you don't take your biogotry and bias against the majority to other States too.

If it was really true that some states were not given the correct amount of "Electorial Votes' that their populations qualify and deserve them to have, there would be all kinds of law suits at the SCOTUS to correct whatever wrongdoing has occurred, yet there is not even one.

kohler

The National Association of Secretaries of State, on a bipartisan basis, stands by the integrity of our elections.
NASS, as an organization, has 21 Democratic, 33 Republican, and 1 Independent members.

kohler

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored like the big ones because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

kohler

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

kohler

The National Popular Vote bill is not a constitutional amendment.
It would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

In 2016, the Electoral College system effectively silenced 54 million Americans whose votes did not help their candidates in any way.

The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now their votes don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters were minority party voters in their states.

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

kohler

Electoral votes are NOT set by a specific number of the population for each vote.

States with 3 electoral votes range in population from less than 600,000 to almost a million.

Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three.

Morgan

No, let me return the favor, whenever you come on here with your lies and misinformation you prove to be one who is lacking in knowledge and awareness, a person without manners or sophistication and is incapable to carry a civil conversation with someone else. Why don't you attempt to acquire these attributes and then come back to me otherwise after this don't bother, you're repulsive to speak with and I don't have any inclination to bother.


I understand just fine how the electoral college vote works, maybe it is you who cannot understand a chart. Or how to comprehend a post, what I said about gerrymandering was that it turned a lot of states red, not that it determined our president. Pay attention and
Stop being completely sanctimonious and wrong at the same time.

Yes Gerrymandering and the electoral college vote are two different issues and I never said otherwise. But Gerrymandering can affect the vote of the presidency when representatives win the majority of the house and senate, and parties in control manipulate and corrupt campaigns and elections, we have a major problem in our governing process which then allows only that party in control to be heard. As now I am repulsed every time Trump or some other Republican declares "this is what the American people want"...wrong.


Now to correct you, NY and California population didn't decrease, they both increased. California by +3,411,191 in comparison to Texas +4,364,424... but Texas received +4 while Ca. stayed the same. Ca. blue state Texas Red.
Let's look at Fla.they had an increase of +2,871,883 while NY had +416,082 yes a smaller increase but still, an increase, not a decrease but Fla. gained +2 and a population of 18,900,773 while NY with a total population of 19,421,055 lost -2. Again Red vs Blue. Mass with still an increase in population still lost 1(-1)Blue state

BTW the ONLY state that has decreased in population is Michigan.

It figures you are on board with corruption, the party of "as long as we win, it doesn't matter how". A true patriot.

Who "invented" Gerrymandering yeah Gerry, ... Elbridge Gerry, governor of Mass in 1812.
Your Quote:
[Democrats, and then the federal government ordered it to be done in order to institute and form areas where there would be a majority of black people living, in order for black people to be able to get elected to the US Congress, another federal ordered racist segreagation rule, for the benefit of electing black politicians to State and local governments as well.]

Black people had absolutely nothing to do with this, THEY COULDN'T VOTE n 1812!!!!!!

Jesus and you have the audacity to call me ignorant. Please

Randy131 Loc: Florida

You complain about others as, "...persons without manners or sophistication and are incapable to carry a civil conversation with someone else", you should go back and read your own comments, for this is a very good description of you, which I read many of your comments, but refrain from responding to most of them, until you got on your gerrymandering kick again, because they are usually too stupid to deserve an answer.

This is proven by your claim that the Republicans are rigging the "Electorial College", when Democrats go to court and sue every time President Trump turns around, and you can bet your life that they'd do the same if the federal government ever did anything that would cheat them out of an election by incorrectly issuing electorial votes to states, similar to what Al Gore did with the "hanging chad" votes that Florida threw out, and then sued and won to have them only counted in the Democratic stronghold counties in Florida, and not any of the Republican stronghold counties, then in Cook County of Illinois alone, the Democrats threw out more votes for hanging chads than the entire state of Florida did.

I never said the federal government ordered gerrymandering back in 1812, I said when they ordered it to create areas with black majorities, when the Democrats that controlled the DOJ were given power over elections in many southern states, so they could get blacks, who are always mainly Democrats back then, elected to the US Congress, as well as local and state offices. That was real federal government corruption, where Democrats controlling the DOJ gerrymandered voting districts in the south to get black Democrats elected to the US Congress.

But I guess your whining and crying about the American people refusing to make the criminally flawed Hillary Clinton our President will never stop. But because honesty, integrity, and honor still count with the American people, many millions of Democrats in historically blue states, and all the battleground states, voted for President Trump, instead of the criminal Hillary Clinton, turning all those blue states red, and which had absolutely nothing to do wirh any type of gerrymandering, in order to give President Trump a small electorial vote landslide.

Also with all the fraudulent voting that the Democrats use in every election, cheating the American people out of their votes from counting for anything, and you try to denigrate others for what you think is their lack of patriotism, yet you not only refuse to do something about all the proven voter fraud, simply because it's mostly all done by your Democratic cohorts, but you refuse to admit it even exists, and ignore it, which is not the definition of patriotism, and in my last comment I laid out much proof of that Democratic fraudulent voting, but you just want to complain that the 'Electorial College' is fraudulent, which even Hillary Clinton would not suggest when she lost the Presidential election, but just falsely blaming her lost on the Russians and everyone else that was ever in the news media for anything during the election season.

I definately don't like communicating with you either, so I'll make you a deal, you never respond to any of my comments any more, and I'll do the same with yours.

Morgan

I know who I am and how I respond, to who and why as I am familiar with your posts and offenses to me and others as well, with you there also appears to be two different mannerisms. Look at how you started your post to me in the first sentence with an insult, when I never insulted you, as a matter of fact, I wasn't even responding to you, but you just jumped in and thought you'd cut me down at the get-go, and now like others with the same demeanor, you don't like the reaction and try to project my actions as offensive and undefendable, well your not fooling anyone. I am happy to read every post of mine and will validate every response if you wish and compare them to you.

Now you're changing your wording that's not what you said, which is why I quoted you and you're still wrong as to why gerrymandering got started, it was to win by party manipulation from its inception, again nothing to do with blacks. Which is why we have the cartoon of the strange salamander, hence Gerry-mander. It was the federalists against the democratic/republicans. It was as corrupt then as it is now.

Really, who's whining and crying don't you people ever say anything different when you lose your argument. You apparently are all for corruption and obviously not for honesty, integrity or honor in our governing. Look at the Republican party, they've already been brought to court for unconstitutional offenses numerous times one being for GERRYMANDERING. Now, look at the integrity of Trump your party leader you still want to talk about integrity? Really!

Voting fraud more propaganda hype you're drunk with.

The Electoral college, not the electorial, didn't work in your favor you can be sure you'd be up in arms jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth in a typical rage. But for now it's all good it's working for you. BTW why aren't YOU doing anything REMEMBER you've had control in Congress for just about a year now, what's the holdUP? What's the excuse, maybe the fact that's it's all BS!

I'll tell you what lets all protest to start the next presidential vote be counted from west to east and see how that works out. Where California and Washington's electoral votes get counted first. Or all states are counted before a decision is made.

...and lastly, that's fine with me.