Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

I am a Trump voter and I have no problems changing the rules. But you need to realize if the rules are changed, the campaign will solely be conducted in California, New York and Texas. Forget about Iowa, New Hampshire and 90% of the other states, they don't matter anymore.

We should have just a one-day national primary and 90-day general campaign. The current election process is too wasteful and only benefit networks to sell ads.

Not true, the campaign will always be in states and regions that have undecided voters. Why would someone waste their energy in CA when it is SOLID BLUE or in Alabama which is solid Red?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg enough already you sore loser libs. Go away. Go start working on your dumbass "mail safety pins to trump" campaign. YOU. LOST.

tell them pp! Send them a box of crayons, coloring books, Kleenex and maybe some milk and cookies for when they take breaks from mailing safety pins.

From the comfort of their ultra white neighborhoods, no doubt.

Anonymous wrote:Omg enough already you sore loser libs. Go away. Go start working on your dumbass "mail safety pins to trump" campaign. YOU. LOST.

tell them pp! Send them a box of crayons, coloring books, Kleenex and maybe some milk and cookies for when they take breaks from mailing safety pins.

It is possible that the secret ballot is racist (or that five Justices may one day so hold). I say, mandate that votes be public. Liberals would never lose.

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

I am a Trump voter and I have no problems changing the rules. But you need to realize if the rules are changed, the campaign will solely be conducted in California, New York and Texas. Forget about Iowa, New Hampshire and 90% of the other states, they don't matter anymore.

We should have just a one-day national primary and 90-day general campaign. The current election process is too wasteful and only benefit networks to sell ads.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see that Maine splits its electoral vote - not sure the formula, but Hillary won the popular vote about 48 to 45% and she got 3 of he 4 electoral votes, and Trump got 1. So it seems states can proportion their EC votes to reflect the popular vote?

Yes only Maine and Nebraska does this.

Is it a choice the individual states get to make?
So could more do this if they wanted to?

Yes its the choice of the state and more can do it if they wanted to BUT that won't fix the issue that the EC votes themselves are not allocated fairly. For instance WY with 550K voters have 3 EC votes as does North Dakota with 750k voters. So the person winning ND will have 200K more votes BUT still get only 3 EC votes. Thats the crux of the problem.

PP, maybe you should move to Wyoming then you could feel good about there 'advantage'. LOL

OP - think about it.... even if you reduced these small states (WY, ND, SD, MT etc.) from 3 EC votes down to 1 EC vote to "correct" as you say for their "over representation" in the EC Donald Trump still would have won the EC and the presidency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see that Maine splits its electoral vote - not sure the formula, but Hillary won the popular vote about 48 to 45% and she got 3 of he 4 electoral votes, and Trump got 1. So it seems states can proportion their EC votes to reflect the popular vote?

Yes only Maine and Nebraska does this.

Is it a choice the individual states get to make?
So could more do this if they wanted to?

Yes its the choice of the state and more can do it if they wanted to BUT that won't fix the issue that the EC votes themselves are not allocated fairly. For instance WY with 550K voters have 3 EC votes as does North Dakota with 750k voters. So the person winning ND will have 200K more votes BUT still get only 3 EC votes. Thats the crux of the problem.

PP, maybe you should move to Wyoming then you could feel good about there 'advantage'. LOL

Its not about me. Its about an antiquated law that served its purpose to count the slaves without giving them the vote when it was created. But the senate is there to fight for the small states as it was designed. The direct election of the president should be based on majority vote. period. Why are the republicans against it? Afterall they won landslide popular vote wins in 1988 when Reagan was president and in 1988 it was still a very big popular vote win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see that Maine splits its electoral vote - not sure the formula, but Hillary won the popular vote about 48 to 45% and she got 3 of he 4 electoral votes, and Trump got 1. So it seems states can proportion their EC votes to reflect the popular vote?

Yes only Maine and Nebraska does this.

Is it a choice the individual states get to make?
So could more do this if they wanted to?

Yes its the choice of the state and more can do it if they wanted to BUT that won't fix the issue that the EC votes themselves are not allocated fairly. For instance WY with 550K voters have 3 EC votes as does North Dakota with 750k voters. So the person winning ND will have 200K more votes BUT still get only 3 EC votes. Thats the crux of the problem.

PP, maybe you should move to Wyoming then you could feel good about there 'advantage'. LOL

Anonymous wrote:I see that Maine splits its electoral vote - not sure the formula, but Hillary won the popular vote about 48 to 45% and she got 3 of he 4 electoral votes, and Trump got 1. So it seems states can proportion their EC votes to reflect the popular vote?

And I have held an opinion for a long time that they all should. For one thing, it forces candidates to address the nation rather than the issues in a few battle ground states. But more importantly, it encourages all to vote.

As to the Maine split, that to me is unfair. That close of a vote should mandate an even split. In the case of states with odd EC numbers there would have to be a determination how to divide but I wouldn't be opposed to an even split resulting in half a vote for each.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see that Maine splits its electoral vote - not sure the formula, but Hillary won the popular vote about 48 to 45% and she got 3 of he 4 electoral votes, and Trump got 1. So it seems states can proportion their EC votes to reflect the popular vote?

Yes only Maine and Nebraska does this.

Is it a choice the individual states get to make?
So could more do this if they wanted to?

Yes its the choice of the state and more can do it if they wanted to BUT that won't fix the issue that the EC votes themselves are not allocated fairly. For instance WY with 550K voters have 3 EC votes as does North Dakota with 750k voters. So the person winning ND will have 200K more votes BUT still get only 3 EC votes. Thats the crux of the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

Regardless of race and party, OP, you are stupid.

Have you even bothered to read the link? There are historians who have written books on the same topic. Go to Amazon and buy a book to read the evolution of the electoral college. But then that's too much work to learn and disprove yourself, so better be an ignoramus who knows everything by sheer existence.

There are people who have written books defending everything.

BFD.

So you would rather believe your own stupid idiocy based on know nothing common sense. So the greatest democracy is the one that picks the majority vote loser to be president. Shame on America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

Regardless of race and party, OP, you are stupid.

Have you even bothered to read the link? There are historians who have written books on the same topic. Go to Amazon and buy a book to read the evolution of the electoral college. But then that's too much work to learn and disprove yourself, so better be an ignoramus who knows everything by sheer existence.

There are people who have written books defending everything.

BFD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see that Maine splits its electoral vote - not sure the formula, but Hillary won the popular vote about 48 to 45% and she got 3 of he 4 electoral votes, and Trump got 1. So it seems states can proportion their EC votes to reflect the popular vote?

Yes only Maine and Nebraska does this.

Is it a choice the individual states get to make?
So could more do this if they wanted to?

Anonymous wrote:I see that Maine splits its electoral vote - not sure the formula, but Hillary won the popular vote about 48 to 45% and she got 3 of he 4 electoral votes, and Trump got 1. So it seems states can proportion their EC votes to reflect the popular vote?

Yes only Maine and Nebraska does this.

I see that Maine splits its electoral vote - not sure the formula, but Hillary won the popular vote about 48 to 45% and she got 3 of he 4 electoral votes, and Trump got 1. So it seems states can proportion their EC votes to reflect the popular vote?