TRUMP 2020!

[William one eye]

us umpteen million new yorkers and californians say no guns well sht that skrews everyone then. i dont think that would be cool... we like guns here.

just as an example .. ideas very across the land is the point

So if california and new york represent 14% of the national population. They get about 14 % of the electoral votes.

In both states hillary won 60% of the vote.

That means 40% of that 14% are not spoken for.


As for guns i wanted to protect my family but i have now returned 3 defective AR15s . I cannont get these .50 bmg rounds to fit in any of them . Disolusioned by this i going to give up on guns and have to rely on the police to protect my family.
Maybe i should take the defund banners out of my yard.

[Mack]

i get what youre saying i think. i just dont think its a good idea to have popular vote, because it would be a few states basicly making all the difference.. i dont like the way electoral colleges work either, but we need to have something like that I think

[Leo]

Wait is it just me, or does that argument make zero sense?

If we did popular vote, it wouldn't be counted by state but by individual. So the state that you live in is completely irrelevant. It wouldn't make a difference if I lived in Alaska or California, because it wouldn't be the electoral college so it wouldn't be counted by state. Just how what city I live in wouldn't affect the outcome. The candidates wouldn't win states the same way they do.

BTW, my guess is republicans would switch to the "get rid of the electoral college" side if Trump wins the pop vote but loses the electoral college.

[Mack]

no see the point in the E.C. is not everyone thinks the same accross the land say texas does not think like new york at allllll... but they have little say with votes E. C. makes thier voice a little louder. does that make sense?

[Meliva]

No, most republicans I think would accept they lost an election and not whine about it for the next 4 years. I mean, did you see any republicans whining about losing the house 2 years ago? I certainly didn't.

The state you live in would be relevant with popular vote. Because different places have different issues. Farming states, such as Kansas, Idaho, Nebraska, are far less populated then say, New York, and would have some very different issues. With popular vote however, a candidate would focus on issues mainly affecting large population areas-cities and heavy population states. Which means states with low population would more often then not be ignored. I mean, why focus on issues affecting farmers? There are far more votes to be won focusing on urban living city workers then them.

I still am in favor of electors being divided by popular vote in states, until something changes my mind about that. But the electoral college should remain.

[Leo]

I see your point. However, if there are say 20K farmers in a state who care about one issue and 10M people in a city who care about another, why should the farmers get the same amount of voting power? Regardless of state, Presidents should be elected based on which candidate has more votes, not which candidate has more theoretical votes. Because if they are just theoretical, then they aren't real and shouldn't be counted. That's pretty simple logic. Also the electoral college would be better if it actually did it's job correctly. However the proportions are all messed up. For example California has 53 representatives and 39.5M people. Wyoming has 3 Representatives and only 578K people. According to this math California should have 68 times as many reps because it has 68 times as many people. But California only has 53 reps not 204 (3*68). If this got fixed the electoral college would be great. However, it's still like this and until it gets fixed I'm holding my opinion that it should be removed and replaced with overall popular vote.

[Mack]

the reason its like that is whats been said above

[Meliva]

Because if farmers don't have the same amount of voting power, then that puts them in a bad bloody position. Do you not know just how important having a say in how things are run is? Why do you think so many people throughout history have literally FOUGHT and died to have the right to have a say? Because when a group has no say, or their say matters less then others, that opens the doors to horrible things. What's to stop a future president to promise states like New york, or California, super cheap food by making farming states sell their produce for next to nothing? What's to stop them from taking water from farming states to give to city folks during droughts? After all, if farmers have less voting power, they can't vote out the president next election-and why would city folk vote a president out who's treating them nicely?

The founding father's were some of the most ingenious, and forward thinking people this world has ever seen. The electoral college is necessary. Because at the end of the day, most folks will always put themselves and their families first, and strangers second. So it's absolutely vital that everyone has as close to an equal say in things as possible. Things rarely, if ever end well for folks who don't have a voice.

[Leo]

And what I'm saying is that with the current state of the electoral college, people don't have equal say. Just look at the numbers I posted. How is that equal?

[Meliva]

The electoral college makes it so that lower population states, have votes that matter more then they would if it was by popular vote alone. What you are suggesting with California having 204 bloody votes would be a horrible idea. It would make it to where high pop states would have most of the power, while low pop states could just be ignored. Yes, things aren't 100% equal across the board, some votes will weigh more then others. It's a necessary evil however, because otherwise as I've said before, it would make it to where low pop farming states could just be thrown in the garbage if it meant winning a high pop state like New York or Cali.

There's a damn good reason why we've had the electoral college since our nation's birth, and it's because the founding father's had the foresight and wisdom to come up with numerous amazing systems, that even centuries later is STILL being used. Once again, you are acting like a naive optimist. Popular vote sounds fair and good until you actually think about what could happen down the road. The founding father's thought that through really well. Hence the Electoral College.