Since when have the partisans that oppose the EC ever been honest about anything? Their girl lost and now they're trying an end run around the law to increase their chances of winning in the future. It's the same old, same old partisan Democratic tactics that we've all come to know and be contemptuous of.Ask yourself if you HONESTLY would have posted the same thing if the outcome was reversed? If the answer is no, (remember I said honestly) then what is the motivation for this compact? If we were to get rid of the EC and the next cycle Trump won the popular vote and lost what would have under the old rules, the EC vote, would you then be in favor of reverting back? Stop blaming the EC and look at the DNC and who they put up, and who they forced out. Look to those on the left that stayed home and didn't vote. Look to the past and the 'above the law' attitude that both parties operate under that alienates most honest hardworking people. Look to the times when your candidate could have risen above the pile'o shit and behaved like the leader you felt she is, instead of saying things like; when Donald releases this I'll release that. She lowered herself to the bar that Trump set and paid the price. This 'change the rules because we don't like the outcome' crap just makes the left look like amateurs. A simple matter of getting the left to vote in the same numbers as 08 or 12 wold have had a Clinton in the White House again. How it that the fault of something that has been around since 1845? And if you think about it, how many more Rs would have voted in places like NY, NV, WA, CA and others if they thought for a second their vote would matter? To suggest that the vote totals would be the same is wishful thinking at best.
I guess you could award her a participation badge or something. The popular vote isn't how we elect presidents, she didn't win anything except an insufficient number of states./facepalm
Some of them are trying to do it for this election.Since when have the partisans that oppose the EC ever been honest about anything? Their girl lost and now they're trying an end run around the law to increase their chances of winning in the future. It's the same old, same old partisan Democratic tactics that we've all come to know and be contemptuous of.
I guess you could award her a participation badge or something. The popular vote isn't how we elect presidents, she didn't win anything except an insufficient number of states.
The idea that Clinton "won" the popular vote. It wasn't being competed for.Who are you even trying to argue with? The voices in your head?
One effect, plaintiff attorney Gerald Hebert argued during a trial in May, was to reduce the number of swing districts from 19 to 10. The plaintiffs also noted that under the new maps in 2012 Republicans won 60 of 99 Assembly seats even though Democrats won a majority of the statewide vote.
First, one entire state voting a single way is a ridiculous idea that would never happen. Second, 1-3 states have that say already. Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania could swing the result of basically any election they wanted which means the vast majority of states have effectively no say now.
On a more basic note though, why doesn't it simply make sense for the person the most people voted for to win? That's how literally every state elects its chief executive and that seems to work fine.
As the OP shows, a constitutional amendment is not required.
No, who needs an amendment when we can bully and threaten the members of the EC to do what we want. It's the liberal way.
No, who needs an amendment when we can bully and threaten the members of the EC to do what we want. It's the liberal way.
.Do most people even know that there wasn't a Republican choice for the Senate on the California ballot? The laws that a Democratic majority passed eliminated Republicans from the final ballot. With their two most important votes for National Government being eliminated in a one party fiat why would any Republican bother to show up to vote? And yet these Democratic hypocrites try to act like all they care about is a fair election? They do whatever they can to suppress the conservative vote in California.
...but... but her feelings are hurt!
Nothing's more important than fee-fees! <3
As the OP shows, a constitutional amendment is not required.
Do most people even know that there wasn't a Republican choice for the Senate on the California ballot? The laws that a Democratic majority passed eliminated Republicans from the final ballot. With their two most important votes for National Government being eliminated in a one party fiat why would any Republican bother to show up to vote? And yet these Democratic hypocrites try to act like all they care about is a fair election? They do whatever they can to suppress the conservative vote in California.
EC is comprised of # of House representatives (# based on population) + Senators (2 per state).
I would assume OP is also in favor of eliminating the Senate, since the reasoning behind having the Senate and the structure of the EC is essentially the same.
"I know you are but what am iiiIIiIIIiii??"That last sentence sums up every post you've ever made.
"I know you are but what am iiiIIiIIIiii??"
Get back to me when you have an actual rebuttal.
Democrats manipulated the laws and the vote to create an "Open" primary. Then it was just a matter of vote manipulation to get the Republicans off the ballot that had a major impact on Republican voter turnout. Of course it's all fair and good and proper when Democrats screw the conservatives, but somehow the Electoral College is an evil and wicked conservative plot..
Bullshit. link us up to how CA law took a Repub Senate candidate of the ballot.
What on earth are you talking about?
Give me something to rebut other than your fee-fees & I'll give it a shot.