Is it possible that California’s 4.4 million republican votes could swing a election towards a Republican candidate under a popular vote system?
A simple yes or no would suffice
Is it possible for Keith Richards to be on tour when he is 90 years old?
but to answer your silly question… Its an impossible question to answer, how can one answer that question.
The republican candidate might not be popular in other states, we dont know so no one can answer that question.
Here is the thing you dont get and I asked you this earlier how does the candidate get selected for the national stage?
lets pretend there is a popular national vote, then there will be no more blue and red states as there will be multiple candidates/multiple parties, or do you not get that?
Are they GOP? In California, there’s no point in voting if you’re not a Dem. because the parasites outnumber the workers 5 to 1- and while not all Dems. are parasites, all parasites are Dems.
Actually, then their vote would be swallowed whole by the voters of the urban states, who are you trying to kid here?
No. and you know it. 41% contribute nothing but feces and criminality - and you can be assured - they vote Dem. as do their deceased relatives, their ‘undocumented’ neighbors, etc… eighty percent of the taxes are paid by the to 10-20% of workers.
Good luck with that. We both know that won’t happen. This Republic wasn’t set up to function under mob rule for good reason. We also already know what the real goal is behind this move. It has nothing to do with “making sure every vote counts” either. 
He’s selling his bullshit to anybody stupid enough to buy it, apparently. He’s forgetting the first rule of sales though: know your target audience.
2 Likes
What happens to their (Republicans in CA) votes today, under the EC?
Yes, which means for some of you… I need to dumb it down. However I don’t have crayons and markers.
What happens to a Republican vote in a solid Democrat state, under the EC? Does it count or not?
Sounds like your issue is with the individual state “winner takes all” rule. So how do you propose to fix it? By implementing a national “winner takes all” rule based on the National popular vote instead. Brilliant!
It wouldn’t count under your proposed changes either, so what exactly are you changing?
Oh yes it would…
Take a blue state today… let’s say Colorado. Under EC look at this scenario
If 51% of the vote went to a Democrat and the other 49% don’t count.
No matter how close the margin is… that 49% is fucked and their vote gets thrown out of the window.
Now imagine that same scenario with the popular vote… now that 49% still has hope that they can help increase the overall total of votes to help their candidates win. Their vote may help supplement a shortfall in another state. For example, Someone could be in Colorado and see the polls close in Florida and be more motivated to vote because their vote can help make up a difference.
NO, that is the way life is, 51% wins, whether is a popular vote, E.C, parliamentary, winner takes all.
there are winners and there are losers.
No that is dumb, because if the person in Colorado is making up his or her mind to vote for someone because some one in Florida is voting for whatever candidate then that voter in Colorado needs to turn in their voting card as they are too stupid to vote.
that would be like me voting for Trump because Hillary has a big lead in the Democratic peoples republic of California
You would think im out to lunch
3 Likes
-
They are fishing … and casting a wide net. If they were required to get warrants, a judge would laugh them out of court.
-
What illegal act? What conspiracy? The Democrats have fabricated a scenario and are busting their balls trying to find some evidence … any evidence … to support it. Their abuse of power is thoroughly shameful.
1 Like
How? If the National popular vote is leaning blue, their votes still go blue. What they’re supposed to feel better about voting in hopes of helping a state that MIGHT vote Red? If you were really interested in “making every vote count” you would keep the electoral college, and each “vote” based on population. You’d simply remove the “winner takes all” rule that invalidates the votes you’re pretending to be worried about. This bullshit your side is proposing changes absolutely nothing and actually takes the “winner takes all” rule further than it currently goes. It also conveniently gets around the current EC rules which prevented your party from winning the 2016 election without drastically altering the system that your party will no doubt continue to attempt to rig in their favor. How convenient.
For @Pragmatic and all the people like him who fell asleep in civics class…
- There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 84% of them.
- There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
- Clinton is reputed to have won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes but claims of extensive voter fraud has disputed that as fact.
- In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
- These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
- When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this @Pragmatic, is WHY we have an Electoral College. It’s a safety net so that EVERY vote counts.
4 Likes
How will it be any different if we go by the national popular vote and Democrats reliably win that? Won’t every republican vote in the country no longer “count”?
I don’t think it will hold up in court, states control of electors is not a plenary power, meaning it is not a power states came into the union with, it was created by the constitution, the framers of which expressly considered a national popular vote for President and dismissed it. It can be struck down using the same legal reasoning that struck down congressional term limits.
If we are to assume state legislators have unlimited power to choose the electors in whatever fashion they like, doesn’t that mean a state could legislate that their Presidential electors would be chosen by the RNC going forward? Or by the flip of a coin? It’s not an unlimited plenary power, it is a constitutionally created one and I would expect the court to take into consideration the intent and deliberation of the people who created it.
I don’t know. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Super Delegates? Yet, those have been in play for how many elections now? Let’s face it, when you’re no longer even pretending to adhere to the Constitution and you have stacked the Federal courts with activist judges who also don’t even bother to pretend to uphold the Constitution, you can make up pretty much any rules you want to. Especially when the people voting for your party don’t know any better because they haven’t got the first clue how government (state or federal) is really supposed to function legally.
They will ultimately have to face a conservative leaning court. The last stop, SCOTUS. Good read on the subject here, be warned it’s long.
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview
By the way that the EC is undemocratic is a flat out lie, what it isn’t is majoritarian, majoritarian and democratic are not the same things.
1 Like