Can States choose to distribute electoral votes according to the popular vote?

Get honest. You simply want the tyranny of the majority to prevail, and have liberals select the President every time.

This has nothing to do with one person, one vote, or if you could grasp the concept of reasonable, you wouldn't be attempting to use that false canard.

The EC insures all parts of the country are included in the decision of selecting the President, and you don't want that.

So stop with the BS and step up.

 

nope. those in Wyoming have a vote that carries 3.5 times more weight than a voter in California.

 

In which state did Hillary get 3 million more votes and not win the votes of the state's electors?

 

Worth more? A person in a rural state lets say Alabama vote counts the same as everyone else in Alabama. If we go to popular vote and the candidate you wanted to win doesn’t does that mean your vote didn’t count? I say we have dual presidents a democrat and a republican

 

How many electors does California have versus Wyoming? 55 to 3 lol

 

To summarize if my candidate loses in my state my vote didn’t count and to fix that we should go to popular vote. Well what happens when your candidate still loses? According to some your vote didn’t count and that’s not fair!! It’s a mentality of a spoiled child and it’s always something

 

irrelevant. a vote in Wyoming carries 3 times the weight of a vote in California. This is entirely un-American. The constitution needs changed as the EC is outdated. one vote needs to equal one vote.

 

California getting 18 times the electors as Wyoming isn’t relevant..... ok

I’m assuming in 2012 when Barack Obama won 51.1% of popular vote but got 61.7% of the electors you were upset and thought he should’ve have those 10% unearned electors back?

 

How many centuries does it take Democrats to understand the simple English that defines how Presidents are elected?

Should voter registration include an IQ test?

Let's get this straight. The law is the law. Clinton and Trump competed under the same laws. In the general, Trump didn't spend money in states he couldn't win. He spent his money in states he had to win. Hillary was so giddy over the states she couldn't lose that she didn't compete for electors in competitive states. She even managed the feat of losing PA.

Do you also think after a basketball game is over, the ref should be able to proclaim that 3 point shots were only worth 2 points?

If the law was different and Trump campaigned in CA, NY, and IL in the general, he would have ended up with more votes than Hillary. He didn't. Instead, he ended up with more money AND more electoral college votes in the end. Quit your temper tantrum and tell your party to nominate someone who embraces American values.

 

“Do you also think after a basketball game is over, the ref should be able to proclaim that 3 point shots were only worth 2 points?” As a child from the participation trophy era, yes even when I lose I should win!

If your candidate loses your vote doesn’t count and that’s not fair.

 

This, as Democrats fight to give El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico seats in the House and electors in Presidential elections. You can't make this unreported fact up ,,, or the fact that it's going unreported.

 

My guess is that states with a heavy disposition to one side or the other would not want their EC votes watered down. Imagine the following scenario ...

California decides to end "winner take all" for a proportionate EC vote. The state votes 65 percent - 35 percent in favor of a Democrat. Nationally, it's a close race, and the Republican wins the EC vote by a very narrow margin.

Californians would then realize that if they had kept "winner take all", the Democrat would have won the election, and they'd be cursing themselves for changing the system.



And a side note: Historically, the electorate flip-flops in presidential elections from one party to the other. I was born during the Eisenhower years. In my lifetime there have been 6 Republicans and 5 Democrats elected president (Ford was not elected). If the historical pattern holds true, the next president will be a Democrat. Whenever that happens, all this hand-wringing about the EC will fade away.

 

If the states get away with disenfranchising their voters, then they can do it.

 

Some states required the EC system as a prerequisite to them joining the union. Abandonning it would effectively be a breach of contract and grounds for them to secede.

The worry that local governance would be undermined by faraway and culturally disconnected urban centers is not a new one.

Are you prepared to break up the nation over it, and/or have another civil war to try and force them back in?

 

No, it isn’t. Wyoming votes carry 3 times the weight of California’s.

ABSOLUTELY! One vote equals one vote. We should never have a president elected to office whom the people specifically rejected. We have had 2 out of the last 3 presidents so elected. It’s as unamerican as you can get.

 

How many times can you guys make the same strawman?

Why?

Read what the actual discussion is about, instead of what you make up in your head.

 

about 3 million more people voted fro Hillary in 2016, Trump still won... sad!

 

The Democrats are angry because their ideas are faulty. The only way they can attain power is to lie through the media and try change the fundamental of our system of governance. They know that liberal cities outnumber rural conservatives. If they can get their states to pass laws concerning how their electors must vote they can fix it so they never lose another presidential election.
In short it's an evil power grab against the will of the American people.

 

he is the rights new Messiah

 

Then why is the violent left always quoting him on the things they want?

 

cause some the right thinks Trump is their new Messiah

 

You are saying that you want people in certain areas to have 5 - 6 times the voting power as people in other areas...

...and, incredibly, you are saying you are doing it in the interest of FAIRNESS.

Give up on it.

It will never be fair...although it may always prevail.

 

I will answer that if you first answer, "Why do some people use beef and some lamb in stews?"

Neither answer will have any consequences at all on what is being discussed, but it will be fun.

 

Not sure that explains why the violent left is quoting him though.

 

I'm sorry the concept of one person one vote is just so damn hard to understand

I don't care what political persuasion you are I don't think the electoral college is a good thing I have lost twice in my lifetime

why should rural rednecks vote count anymore than an Inner city person is trying to struggle to make a living there ? States are meant to be regional but Federal decisions are the entire country

We should be making every effort to decentralize power to regional hands. I think the power is going into the executive branch has hands way too fast

Cities are big economic centers and you can't grow them on farms . But cities do grow based on agricultural economy surrounding them. It's a big problem that our leaders have allowed too many people and not enough jobs for decades. Congressman Mike Lee says making babies is the solution to global warming