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.

NO in any other country in the world, a Majority vote winner is the president BUT then USA is a FAKE democracy which picks the LOSER to be president. The real loser in this is the TRUMP voter who is gonna be screwed by a recession that is gonna follow the tax cuts for the rich and the environment. Trump is not gonna get any jobs from the machines or from China. Coal is a dead industry with Solar costing lower than Coal and going lower.

The US isn't a democracy, dumbass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

Sorry to break it to you, but slavery is not the center of the universe...or the reason for the EC system -- something like that was needed to create a Union of states with very different population sizes (regardless of slavery).

The senate was designed to give a voice to the small states. Thats why every state regardless of their population have 2 senators. Its the job of the senate to represent the small states. But the presidency is also skewed towards the small states DISENFRANCHISING states like CA. Are you saying in our democracy we need to disenfranchise big states like CA, NY even when they contribute the most to the GDP, innovation, technology and revenue? Then why should they be in the union? Why not the small states live off their own revenue, why are big states paying for the welfare of small states? So CA gets the raw deal. They pay for the welfare of the small states, in return they get disenfranchised. CA should leave the union.

With CA having 55 electoral votes, they're hardly disenfranchised. Remember, we're the UNITED states of America. That's why we fought a war.

Hillary won with over 1 Million votes majority but those 1 Million doesn't matter and TRUMP still won. So those 1 Million voters are disenfranchised. Are you on drugs?

WY with about 1 Million population(rounded up generously since they have only about 600K) has 3 Electoral votes. CA with over 35 million population has only 55 EC votes when they should have 3 X 35 = 105 EC votes. So CA is seriously disenfranchised even when they contribute the most to the welfare of the small states. CA should just quit payingmoney to the federal unless they get equal representation. REMEMBER ONE PERSON ONE VOTE, but in America every person in WY has 2 EC votes for every person in CA, even in a very conservative calculation.

np

Why do you persist in your ignorance. You have been told many times that using this election under the current system as a true barometer is a false equivalent. Take away the EC and see what happens then as to the vote. The EC suppresses, to what extent we don't know yet, the vote. In a state like Texas where Trump was a sure winner you had voters for Trump and Hillary that probably didn't vote at all.

So, stop trying to make an argument against something, the EC, based on a vote from an election with the EC in it!!!

The current system is a disaster for DEMOCRACY according to Trump. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS IGNORANT and not understanding that 1 Million voters are disenfranchised.

How does the EC suppress the vote? If at all anything it suppresses the BLUE VOTES IN BIG States because many liberals wont go out and vote because the result in their state is a foregone conclusion. Even if many small red state voters go out and vote they still don't have the numbers. Thats the bottom line and reason why GOP hasn't won the majority vote 6/7 times in 24 years.

How long do you think the GOP can continue with bare minimum EC win without wining the Majority votes? How long will CA and NY will take the disenfranchisement sitting down?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

Sorry to break it to you, but slavery is not the center of the universe...or the reason for the EC system -- something like that was needed to create a Union of states with very different population sizes (regardless of slavery).

The senate was designed to give a voice to the small states. Thats why every state regardless of their population have 2 senators. Its the job of the senate to represent the small states. But the presidency is also skewed towards the small states DISENFRANCHISING states like CA. Are you saying in our democracy we need to disenfranchise big states like CA, NY even when they contribute the most to the GDP, innovation, technology and revenue? Then why should they be in the union? Why not the small states live off their own revenue, why are big states paying for the welfare of small states? So CA gets the raw deal. They pay for the welfare of the small states, in return they get disenfranchised. CA should leave the union.

With CA having 55 electoral votes, they're hardly disenfranchised. Remember, we're the UNITED states of America. That's why we fought a war.

Hillary won with over 1 Million votes majority but those 1 Million doesn't matter and TRUMP still won. So those 1 Million voters are disenfranchised. Are you on drugs?

WY with about 1 Million population(rounded up generously since they have only about 600K) has 3 Electoral votes. CA with over 35 million population has only 55 EC votes when they should have 3 X 35 = 105 EC votes. So CA is seriously disenfranchised even when they contribute the most to the welfare of the small states. CA should just quit payingmoney to the federal unless they get equal representation. REMEMBER ONE PERSON ONE VOTE, but in America every person in WY has 2 EC votes for every person in CA, even in a very conservative calculation.

np

Why do you persist in your ignorance. You have been told many times that using this election under the current system as a true barometer is a false equivalent. Take away the EC and see what happens then as to the vote. The EC suppresses, to what extent we don't know yet, the vote. In a state like Texas where Trump was a sure winner you had voters for Trump and Hillary that probably didn't vote at all.

So, stop trying to make an argument against something, the EC, based on a vote from an election with the EC in it!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

Sorry to break it to you, but slavery is not the center of the universe...or the reason for the EC system -- something like that was needed to create a Union of states with very different population sizes (regardless of slavery).

The senate was designed to give a voice to the small states. Thats why every state regardless of their population have 2 senators. Its the job of the senate to represent the small states. But the presidency is also skewed towards the small states DISENFRANCHISING states like CA. Are you saying in our democracy we need to disenfranchise big states like CA, NY even when they contribute the most to the GDP, innovation, technology and revenue? Then why should they be in the union? Why not the small states live off their own revenue, why are big states paying for the welfare of small states? So CA gets the raw deal. They pay for the welfare of the small states, in return they get disenfranchised. CA should leave the union.

With CA having 55 electoral votes, they're hardly disenfranchised. Remember, we're the UNITED states of America. That's why we fought a war.

Yes United states of America means all people in all states are equal, right? But how is all people equal when over 1 Million voters are disenfranchised?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

Sorry to break it to you, but slavery is not the center of the universe...or the reason for the EC system -- something like that was needed to create a Union of states with very different population sizes (regardless of slavery).

The senate was designed to give a voice to the small states. Thats why every state regardless of their population have 2 senators. Its the job of the senate to represent the small states. But the presidency is also skewed towards the small states DISENFRANCHISING states like CA. Are you saying in our democracy we need to disenfranchise big states like CA, NY even when they contribute the most to the GDP, innovation, technology and revenue? Then why should they be in the union? Why not the small states live off their own revenue, why are big states paying for the welfare of small states? So CA gets the raw deal. They pay for the welfare of the small states, in return they get disenfranchised. CA should leave the union.

With CA having 55 electoral votes, they're hardly disenfranchised. Remember, we're the UNITED states of America. That's why we fought a war.

Hillary won with over 1 Million votes majority but those 1 Million doesn't matter and TRUMP still won. So those 1 Million voters are disenfranchised. Are you on drugs?

WY with about 1 Million population(rounded up generously since they have only about 600K) has 3 Electoral votes. CA with over 35 million population has only 55 EC votes when they should have 3 X 35 = 105 EC votes. So CA is seriously disenfranchised even when they contribute the most to the welfare of the small states. CA should just quit payingmoney to the federal unless they get equal representation. REMEMBER ONE PERSON ONE VOTE, but in America every person in WY has 2 EC votes for every person in CA, even in a very conservative calculation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

Sorry to break it to you, but slavery is not the center of the universe...or the reason for the EC system -- something like that was needed to create a Union of states with very different population sizes (regardless of slavery).

The senate was designed to give a voice to the small states. Thats why every state regardless of their population have 2 senators. Its the job of the senate to represent the small states. But the presidency is also skewed towards the small states DISENFRANCHISING states like CA. Are you saying in our democracy we need to disenfranchise big states like CA, NY even when they contribute the most to the GDP, innovation, technology and revenue? Then why should they be in the union? Why not the small states live off their own revenue, why are big states paying for the welfare of small states? So CA gets the raw deal. They pay for the welfare of the small states, in return they get disenfranchised. CA should leave the union.

With CA having 55 electoral votes, they're hardly disenfranchised. Remember, we're the UNITED states of America. That's why we fought a war.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

Sorry to break it to you, but slavery is not the center of the universe...or the reason for the EC system -- something like that was needed to create a Union of states with very different population sizes (regardless of slavery).

The senate was designed to give a voice to the small states. Thats why every state regardless of their population have 2 senators. Its the job of the senate to represent the small states. But the presidency is also skewed towards the small states DISENFRANCHISING states like CA. Are you saying in our democracy we need to disenfranchise big states like CA, NY even when they contribute the most to the GDP, innovation, technology and revenue? Then why should they be in the union? Why not the small states live off their own revenue, why are big states paying for the welfare of small states? So CA gets the raw deal. They pay for the welfare of the small states, in return they get disenfranchised. CA should leave the union.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

Sorry to break it to you, but slavery is not the center of the universe...or the reason for the EC system -- something like that was needed to create a Union of states with very different population sizes (regardless of slavery).

Go get some education and learn the history of Electoral College. You guys are ignoramus idiots who know nothing but still spew stupidity. Electoral College was devised by the Racist Southern politicians who knew they can't win over Northern politicians based on majority vote because the blacks in the south didn't have a vote. So they designed the EC to count the black population WITHOUT giving them the vote. The racist founders didn't give the blacks vote until the implosion of the country in a civil war and in reality the blacks were excluded until the 1970s after civil rights passed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

That's is simply false.

Please see how Angela Merkel or Theresa May became leaders of their countries.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be seriously sure of the statements you make.

You have no clue about the differences between a direct election presidential system and parliamentary system. First get some basic civics course before you spew ignorance. In a parliamentary system(UK and germany are examples) the party,usually a coalition of parties, that wins an election controls both the legislative and executive branch. The party then elects the prime minister/chancellor.

The US elects its president directly like France. But unlike France, which goes by majority vote, US doesn't pick the majority vote winner. Infact it has an anachronistic Electoral College which has now elected a majoity vote loser as president even when he lost by over 1 million votes. So essentially those 1 Million voters are disenfranchised. THERE IS NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THIS HAPPENS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

Sorry to break it to you, but slavery is not the center of the universe...or the reason for the EC system -- something like that was needed to create a Union of states with very different population sizes (regardless of slavery).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

That's is simply false.

Please see how Angela Merkel or Theresa May became leaders of their countries.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be seriously sure of the statements you make.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

Let me guess...you had no problem with it because you ASSUMED she'd win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED.