When was that? Last seven presidential election Republican won popular vote once but presidency three times. Electoral college was set up to be undemocratic.
It has never worked in the Democrats favor. Five times in history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the presidency: 2016: Trump vs Clinton 2000: Bush vs Gore 1888: Harrison vs Cleveland 1876: Hayes vs Tilden In each of those 4 cases, the electoral college victor (listed first) was the Republican, the popular vote winner was the Democrat. 1824: Adams vs Jackson In this last case, both were members of the same party, the Democratic-Republican party. barfo
When will people quit whining about outcomes. Man there have been numerous times over the years I didn't like the elected President including the one we have now. Gees Louise, if Bernie wins I won't be pleased but I will try not to whine and complain to much, unless he takes my insurance away and my Silver Sneakers membership!
Ya this time is a little different. We’ve got a legitimate imbecile farting around on a golf cart during a hurricane after canceling a trip overseas to tend to said hurricane.
If congress would just do their job it would offset Trumps inadequacies. The congress has been lagging for years, imo. Term limits would take the monetary incentive mostly away from becoming a highly paid politician that becomes worth millions while on the job.
The thing that’s kind of odd to me is that there’s all of this popular vote discussion when the Constitution makes no provision for a presidential election at all. It just calls for the EC, with each state getting a number of electors based on its total number of representatives and senators. It leaves the method of selecting the electors to the states and they have chosen to do it through an election process. They could choose to throw darts at a dartboard. Maybe it’s time to change the method to a national election where majority vote wins, but that requires a constitutional amendment. Until then, bitching about the total vote outcome of 50 individual elections is pretty nonsensical.
Not true. Pretty much everybody has objected to the Electoral College at one time or another. Only now, the Trump cult sees the advantage in it and will never let go. So now, Democrats will have to swamp Republicans.
It doesn't, actually. There is a movement afoot to have states pledge their electors to the national popular vote winner. If enough states agree to that (which, as you point out, they are free to do), then it is accomplished without an amendment. It's not likely to succeed, but it is theoretically possible. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ barfo
I actually like the idea behind the electoral college. Gives a voice to smaller states their citizens. If they had no voice whatsoever and it was just up to Texas, Cali, and New York to decide the issues that those smaller states may have would never be talked about because all the politicians would focus solely on population centers. I get that it sucks when it leads to guys like Trump or when we feel like the “wrong” guy won, but the idea itself has merit in my opinion.
I’m aware of that ploy that Oregon just jumped into (pending getting enough states to join in to get to the magic 270 number) . If blue states are free to ignore the election in their jurisdictions in allocating their electors, I’d halfway expect a retaliatory move by red states to allocate all of the votes in their elections to the candidate with the most votes. What a farce.
Why? What's so special about the people who happen to live in sparsely populated areas that their vote should count for more than your vote? And you really think rural people are more deserving of a vote than you, why is it that a farmer from Pierre South Dakota is more special than a farmer from Burns Oregon? If we give special vote preference to rural people (but only some rural people) so that they have 'voice', shouldn't we give extra vote preference to other minority groups for the same reason? Gays should get extra votes. Hispanics need a voice. Truck drivers. Stay-at-home dads. Meth addicts. barfo
I said smaller states not sparsely populated areas, keep up. Whats “special” is that entire states have needs that should be addressed that go much further than “minority groups”, that effect EVERYONE in there state, if they’re completely devalued, the places politicians care about would get all the money, all the attention while entire states sink and all their people because the union they’re a part of doesnt see them as valuable to the leaders looking to get votes.
There's no difference, you meant sparsely populated states, not geographically small states. What are those 'needs', and in what way do they 'go much further' than than the needs of any other group of citizens? If politicians are going to ignore entire states because the population is so small, wouldn't they be just as likely to also ignore the needs of other (possibly smaller) groups of citizens? So, again: what's so special about people who reside in a particular geographical area, as opposed to any other possible grouping of citizens? barfo
Not quite sure what the retaliatory move you are proposing would be, or why it would matter if the popular vote campaign actually succeeded? barfo
Me too, because he's so much more than that. His family took billions from China in exchange for his treason, for instance. Threatening to withhold billions in aid from US taxpayers, he forced Ukraine to fire the Prosecutor that was prosecuting his son's company. And don't forget he's the man who imprisoned a million blacks.
There is a difference. States joined a union thats all about representation towards the federal government they joined into. This isn’t “minorities”. The electoral college gives smaller states a voice, it keeps politicians at least somewhat honest from plundering those states, from taking their jobs, healthcare, etc. It says that hey we better at least pretend to care what people in Oregon think. Without that they just go to California, Texas, NY campaign there and thats all that matters, the small states have no representation, can be utterly screwed over by the union they joined into and have no recourse but to leave. They’ll Have their businesses coerced to move to the bigger states, to take their jobs, healthcare stripped away (because who cares they arent in Houston). I get that smaller places get screwed on occasion now, but my fear is that without some sort of balance that politicians could so easily just pander to big population states, pillage the smaller ones for anything sort of valuable give it to the bigger places.
It means that in some states voters have more significance than in other states. Shouldn't it be one man one vote? Shouldn't every vote count the same? Why is it that we elect someone that most of the people do not want?
