jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (202 posts)

2016 Election - Clinton's "victory" was all California voters!

  1. The Old Guard profile image80
    The Old Guardposted 9 months ago

    Clinton's popular vote win was basically her win in California - by 4 million + votes.
    Take California away from Clinton, and Trump wins by a landslide.
    The Electoral College prevented this bias of one state forcing it's will on the rest of the nation - which is why it was put into place when the founders set up the Constitution.
    If they had not done so, California's weird ways would have been forced on the rest of the nation.
    Fortunately, the Founders of the country foresaw that a highly populated state could sway the entire country down a path it did not want to go. Hence, in the 2016 election, the Electoral College prevented a few states from forcing the majority of states to follow their bias.
    I think it's very wise - there were 36 states that voted for Trump, 14 that voted for Clinton. Obviously, most STATES want Trump's concept of leadership.
    Most liberal leaning states, like California, New York and Illinois, wanted Clinton.
    Would you rather have 5 populated states leading the country's direction at the Federal level? (In the case of the 2016 election, 14 states telling the other 36 what to do because of population)
    Would you rather have States rights and views leading the country's direction at the Federal level? (In the case 2016 elections, 36 state majority leading the country as a majority of states)
    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13331798_f1024.jpg

    1. profile image81
      Hxprofposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I've never had a problem with the Electoral College.  I learned back in junior high school about the EC - including the reasons for it, and I've been fine with it since.  It's one of the few institutions we have left that hasn't yet been corrupted.

    2. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      When compared with California, why should I give a rat a** about Wyoming? People elect presidents not states. The easiest way to cease being a sparsely populated state is to attract more people, Texas did it. They goober pea types have won this round but your victory will be short as you will find the power of the American left quite formidable.

      So, I tell rightwingers, that I find California, Washington, New York, just fine and find crimson red states as uninhabitable among the enlightened progressives.

      So, I would hold the line on boasting just yet.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        "why should I give a rat a** about Wyoming?"

        Perhaps because the United States is a republic of statesStates with rights that the federal government does not control?  Much of that constitution of the United States is dedicated to the states rights and the limiting of the federal government's power.  This is just one example of that limitation.

        "People elect presidents not states."

        Not hardly.  The constitution of the United States is very explicit about how states cast their votes for President.  Some states even emphasize this by listing the elector being voted for by the people.

        So the leftwingers, those "progressing" towards total federal control over our daily lives, are going to have to subvert the constitution of the United States to get that control - states (and the people living in them) still have rights, regardless of how abhorrent that concept is to the liberals.

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          "Perhaps because the United States is a republic of states?  States with rights that the federal government does not control?  Much of that constitution of the United States is dedicated to the states rights and the limiting of the federal government's power.  This is just one example of that limitation."

          I wonder how forthcoming you would be about singing the praises of the Electoral College, had Hillary won?



          "Not hardly.  The constitution of the United States is very explicit about how states cast their votes for President.  Some states even emphasize this by listing the elector being voted for by the people"

          Unfortunately, that is the system we are manacled into as archaic as itis. I think that it sucks, but I am for orderly and appropriate change through Constutional methods, but of course with all the small states not giving up an unjustified advantage, that won't work.

          "So the leftwingers, those "progressing" towards total federal control over our daily lives, are going to have to subvert the constitution of the United States to get that control - states (and the people living in them) still have rights, regardless of how abhorrent that concept is to the liberals."

          The rightwingers, determined to have us slave before their appointed capitalists masters will and must be brought to heel. But, I am not advocating extraConstitutional methods. We will just let Trump be Trump and watch them all run and let dissatisfaction from the Left take hold, all dissent exercised within the purview of the law, of course. Very similar to your vaunted"TeaParty".

          That is  as long asTrump finds no excuse for martial law, charges of sedition and mass relocation to gulags. None of these concepts are beyond Trump.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            "I wonder how forthcoming you would be about singing the praises of the Electoral College, had Hillary won? "

            Think that would have changed the constitution somehow?  We conservatives tend to live in reality, not a pretend land of Nirvana.

            "Unfortunately, that is the system we are manacled into as archaic as itis."

            Well, it is for liberals anyway - it means that the minority still has at least a little control over their lives.  The "progressives" can't take everything just because there are more of them.  The constitution was pretty adamant about that (thank God), that the minority must be protected from the ravages of a majority run wild.

            Not my tea party - when it comes to social answers they're no better than far right conservatives.

            Heard the same crap about Obama - gulags, martial law, etc.  All the FEMA camps to be turned into concentration camps.  Guess it takes a certain bent of mind to always think it's coming from a President you don't like.

        2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image83
          wba108@yahoo.composted 9 months agoin reply to this

          +1

          1. Rock_nj profile image91
            Rock_njposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            No subvert the Constitution.  How about amend it to one person one vote, which is true democracy.  Are you against true democracy?  Would you be a defender of the Electoral College if Trump had lost due to it?  Doubt it.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              How about amend it to one state, one vote?  That we keep both true democracy and state's rights.

              (Of course, liberal states like California, New York and even Oregon might not be too happy to see other states with the same vote...)

              1. Rock_nj profile image91
                Rock_njposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                How is that equitable Wilderness and what exactly is the rationale for one state one vote?  That means a state like Delaware with under 1 million people has the same voting clout with a state like Texas or Florida that has many times as many people.  I don't see why this makes any sense, except if one is a conservative and wants to win because there are more red states in the US than blue states.

                Without being political, what is the rationale for this approach?  It is not democratic, as it assigns more weight to less populated states and highly devalues the weight of individual votes in highly populated states such as NY, TX, CA, NC, etc.   What is wrong with pure democracy, one person one vote?  It's not like we pass every law that way, and for good reason.  It's just a matter of empowering the citizens to elect their leader.  We do this on a state level when electing Governors and it works just fine.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Guess it depends on how you define "equitable".  You wish it to be defined with the number of people, the founders and writers of the constitution defined it with the states that make up our republic.  In that manner, one vote per state is obviously the most equitable...for the states. 

                  That you don't wish to consider states, but demand that everyone consider only the people, doesn't make it right and doesn't indicate that it has anything to do with our constitution or other ruling documents.

                  "It is not democratic, as it assigns more weight to less populated states and highly devalues the weight of individual votes in highly populated states such as NY, TX, CA, NC, etc."

                  And here you demonstrate that refusal to consider the intent of the constitution by again demanding that only individual citizens be considered and never the political entities of the states that make up the republic.  On top of that massive difference, never forget that our constitution is as much about protection of the minority from the majority; that a simple "majority rules" is NOT the basis of that constitution.  It isn't the basis even to individual people...unless, of course, they agree with what the majority wants, whereupon the needs or wants of the minority are buried beneath that slogan and ignored.

                  There are very good reasons for the EC, for denial of the popular vote and for protection against simple majority rule.  A little research, coupled with an understand that we really ARE a coalition of states, not a single political entity of citizens is in order of you don't understand either concept.

                  1. Rock_nj profile image91
                    Rock_njposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    I can see how someone could defend the Electoral College, since as you said there is some rationale for why it was set up that way and since it's generally proportional to the population it is usually fair.  But, I was questioning your seemingly very unfair one state one vote concept of electing a President of the US.  That does not seem fair in any way.  I would like you to explain why that is better than either the Electoral College or direct democracy?

            2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image83
              wba108@yahoo.composted 9 months agoin reply to this

              "Are you against true democracy"

              I defer to the wisdom of the founders in this case.

              The founders were strongly opposed to direct democracy as it tended to descend into mob rule where 51% of the people could deny the rights of the other 49%. The founders saw the dangers of direct democracy like what happened in the French revolution where a Despot manipulated the passions and prejudices of the people with murderous results.

              The founders wanted to protect the interests of smaller states from being trampled by majorities in more populated ones. This had the added benefit of unity because it forced presidential candidates to win a broader constituency and not just to appeal to larger states or urban populations centers.

              1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
                Dont Taze Me Broposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Rock doesn't seem to have a clue that direct democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority and can threaten individual freedom. Representative democracy allows for disproportionate representation and protection for minority groups. Conclusion, a true democracy just doesn't work and the founders knew it. Educate yourself Rock before you speak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9SSQZX8fUE

                1. Misfit Chick profile image91
                  Misfit Chickposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  What Democracy is not by Donald Trump: "Happy New Year including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!"

                  As we all well-know by now, Mr. Trump wasn't hanging out in the bible/rust belts spewing his hate-mongering, fear-inspiring messages to the simple people he was for nothing. He's a brilliant manipulator; and the fact that his loud, in-the-minority MILITANT supporters condone any of the silly tweets that he puts out like this - is simply proof that God in all of his omnipotent glory does NOT control this world. We the people who actually show up to vote do.

                  To the majority of you out there who just COULDN'T be bothered on election day - screw you, too. You're actually the real reason why Trump is in there: irresponsible, 'can't vote for her' SAME manipulated attititude Trump voters had. At least they cast a vote - and isn't it neat the crap we get to put up with for four years, now?

                  He isn't even trying to unite this country. Can't wait to hear the 'its time to unite' crap that we all know is coming at the inagural, like the lies he tried to convince us of after he was elected. This isn't how you unite a country behind you. He's a YUGE puppet; and I SWEAR he's been doing this crap on purpose since he started the election nominee process. What did he have to worry about? He was already PURPOSEFULLY culling a certain crowd: talking to, manipulating and condoning the actions & hate speech of PROUD deplorables.

                  http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13342516.jpg

                  http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13342519_f1024.jpg

                  http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13342521.jpg

                  http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13342522.jpg

                  http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13342523.png

                  http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13342526.png

                  http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13342529.png

                  http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13342530.png

                  http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13342533.png

                  http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13342534.jpg

                  http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13342537.png

                  http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13342539.jpg

                  http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13342540.png

                  http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13342542.jpg

                  1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
                    Dont Taze Me Broposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    lol That's a bunch of funny!

      2. The Old Guard profile image80
        The Old Guardposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        It's a typical response from the left - they want total control of those of us that have a desire to be free.
        Liberals hate anything that does not fit into their "socialistic" concept of the good for the state vs screw the rights of the individual. That's the goal of all leftists and socialists - control.
        The left is as bigoted and hateful as those they attack - it's funny the idiocy of their "ideals".
        "Love trumps hate" as they take to the streets and destroy.
        So strong are they that they have to have police protect them in safe spaces, crying and weeping as if they were children.
        Yeah, we surely want them at the helm of a republic. We've had it for 8 years, time to have a man in the White House vs an apologist.
        Deal with it snowflakes!

        http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13332839_f248.jpg

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          We will see.....

          1. The Old Guard profile image80
            The Old Guardposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            No need to "we shall see"
            The idiocy of the left is quite apparent daily.
            Have your candidates and your DNC stand up, and they are to blame, no one else.
            Trump just exposed your falsehoods and had a different narrative that individuals still had rights.
            You hypocrisy was your undoing.
            Your hate shows up daily on any left leaning news show.
            Trumps a saint compared to the American hating obamamama we've had to contend with for the last 8 years.
            Talk about bigotry and hate - he was a prime example of the stuff that will destroy a country.
            Watch in awe as a businessman gets things done........

            http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13332867_f248.jpg

            1. Credence2 profile image83
              Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Watch while you get  "done in"

              Funny, I see a inverse picture of your very tirade, but with the Political Right as its object.

              Don't you worry, this Trump will undermine himself and We will be there waiting....

              1. The Old Guard profile image80
                The Old Guardposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                I bet you will be to suck the life out of what's left if Trump fails.
                I have the utmost confidence in your socialist agenda. I've always felt it's too late, but maybe, just maybe, Trump will turn the tide

              2. Perspycacious profile image76
                Perspycaciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Don't just "be there waiting."  Let's all get together and put our shoulders to the wheel and push along....together.  You know "Stronger Together" or isn't that rhetoric good enough to practice what was preached?

                1. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Don't just "be there waiting."  Let's all get together and put our shoulders to the wheel and push along....together.  You know "Stronger Together" or isn't that rhetoric good enough to practice what was preached?

                  While, I despise the political right and Trump generally, I have to work within the system, otherwise we will give them credibility in their attack and response that they do not deserve.

                  We are all pulling together in the war against despotism, but there are many fronts to this war. The easiest way to dispense with an enemy is to have him or her fall on his own sword. The people will see that their choice for President is not being criticized solely because he is conservative.  It will be because he has behaved as an idiot, and that will be universally recognized. Trump has a big mouth, with little  use for learning or reflection, such a man will be like a deer in the headlights. As the outrages continue, the Right will find no solace in lacking an explanation or place to retreat. That is the time we have to be ready for, but timing is critical so we must keep our powder dry for now. But, keep the powder at the ready all the same.

                  1. colorfulone profile image91
                    colorfuloneposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Shall we look at the destruction of the Democratic party under Obama's leadership?  What were the electoral benefits he gave to the party?  The States are decimated, they lost control of the House and the Senate, and Governor-ships are decimated.  Obama's legacy is not looking good.  Even liberals are seeing that!  Everything Obama is doing is diabolical, from the economy to foreign policies, and now in his last days in office, yikes. 

                    Americans get to be the butt of the stupid-jokes. I hope the Democratic party can pull itself up by its boot-straps once again, but its going to take reform.

                  2. Jean Bakula profile image94
                    Jean Bakulaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    +1

      3. John Shires profile image61
        John Shiresposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        When the Electoral College is looked at closely one can see that the United States election is not about population but rather a set of issues going on in a particular State. Each State has a right for their set of problems and worries to be heard. Each State has a right for their voice to be heard as a group. I do not think it is hard to see that the citizens of California have different worries and problems than the citizens of Iowa or West Virginia. It seems to me we cannot expect less populated States to become more populated in order to have an equal voice.  How would Iowa add more population? It is important to remember Iowa consists of corn fields, lots and lots of corn fields. The EC allows the citizens of a State to vote for the candidate that best offers a solution to the problems of that State. It is when the majority of States agree on the best candidate that a winner is chosen.
             For those that think population is the most important thing in an election it is important to note that the EC was a compromise between those that thought every State should get one vote and those that thought population should rule. Remember California cast many more EC votes than Wyoming or Iowa. So in the end population does matter but in the EC system the smaller, less populated States still have a voice that can be heard. These States are still represented in our government.

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          You have been eloquent in your explanation, John. It has been so good, that I have to take it into serious consideration for a little rethink...

    3. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      The current system actually takes power away from less AND more populated states. Instead it gives power to "swing" states (currently around 13 states). Candidates then focus on the swing states, ignoring the rest, as we saw in the election.

      Also, with the current system, it's possible for a candidate to receive only 22% of the popular vote and become president, which means someone can become president even if 78% of the population voted against them.

      The system proposed by the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVIC) is a better alternative. Proposed well before the last election, it fixes the problems with the electoral college system, without abolishing the electoral college. NVPIC explained (6 min video).

      10 states have already signed on to the compact (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) plus the District of Columbia, totaling 165 electoral votes. When the number of states signed is able to reach 270 electoral votes, the compact will become active.

      1. Credence2 profile image83
        Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

        I am sure that you are aware that there has been no 'red states' that have signed up and some are going to needed to get to the magic number. This is not going to be as easy as it looks.

        1. Ewent profile image81
          Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          What makes you think ANY Republican states are needed for the compact. On the independent panel headed by John Lewis and Sheila Jackson Lee, there are 3 Nobel Prize winners and an even number of Dems and Republicans. All 3 of the Nobel Prize winners have stated that no Congressional approval is needed to abolish the Electoral College.

          As such, if the Republican states are relying so heavily on protecting the Electoral College, that proves that these states can only win by majority rule which flies in the face of the US Constitution which grants equality to minority rule. As you can see, Republican states will fight any attempts to abolish that which they abuse ...the Electoral College.

          1. Credence2 profile image83
            Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

            But, Ewent, this is the age of Trump, we are stuck with a HR, Senate and White House that are controlled by Republicans. Do you really think that progressives can get this accomplished? As you say, the GOP is going to fight this advantage that they obtain, but do not deserve.

            1. Ewent profile image81
              Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              You may be stuck...I am not. I have NO intentions of being a door mat for the right wing or Republicans. If they want a revolution. They'll get that revolution. They dished it out for 8 years. They don't get a free pass now for another 8 years.

              In my entire life, I have never suffered domination and never will. Not when "I" pay my way. I've had just about enough of the GREAT WHITE ANGRY MAN ACT with Trump and his hostile little boys and their dimwitted girls. This isn't 1950 where Father Knows Best.

              Anyone who dares think I can be cowed, has yet to feel my wrath when they get up my nose. I was  Republican woman for 33 years. I left when I realized I was hearing ONLY Big Mouth Republican male voices. Now, I don't get angry. I get even. Paybacks...you know what they are.

              1. Credence2 profile image83
                Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                You are preaching to the choir, Ewent. There are many ways to make our voices heard. The power of the press and public opinion have, on more than one occasion, brought down the high and mighty and such may well be the case again.

                Rest assured, we will get him!!

        2. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          True, but the bill has already passed at least one legislative chamber in 12 other states (96 votes). Plus it has been unanimously approved at committee level in two states (27 votes)(1). Plus it's easier than getting a constitutional amendment. Plus it's better to change the EC at state level rather than abolish it. Plus, sometimes you have to be glass-half-full smile

          (1) http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

          1. Credence2 profile image83
            Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

            The link is appreciated, it was interesting to see just how "partisan" the GOP attitude toward not changing the EC is, just go back to 2013.

            So,What say you, rightwingers, to your blatant hypocrisy? And yes we are going to get the changes that you were so much for in 2013. What about all that vaunted Constitutional scholarship regarding its principles?

            So, where are you, you still hiding?

            1. profile image81
              Hxprofposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Credence, I've ALWAYS supported the EC as it currently stands, and always will.  I accept the fact that the EC allows for a president to be elected without a majority of votes; it's a non issue to me.  I don't care what the Republican Party wants or doesn't want, because I'm an independent conservative. There's no apparent need to change the EC, as it's operating exactly as it was intended.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                I haven't always supported the Electoral College. But, after Wilderness posted the map of the county by county - state by state breakdown I realized how important the EC was in allowing the will of the country to be truly represented in that branch of government.

              2. Credence2 profile image83
                Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Hi, Prof, nice to see you back in town.

                I think that I am more irked by those that change their positions on the electoral college like they change their socks with all sorts of rationale, including those based on the integrity of the Constitution. Whether one is for it or against it, that position should be consistent and not adjustable based political expediency.

                I see that is where you are and I can appreciate that.

                Here is where I am at, I know that the EC is a part of the design of the Constitution, although I question if the reason it was conceived is still valid today. When the EC took precedent over the popular vote it was tolerable when it happened once every century. There was no purpose in rocking the apple cart as it happened so rarely. That is one thing but an ominous trend appears when it wasn't 15 years ago when it occurred before.

                Once in a century is one thing, every other election cycle is quite another. These conservatives are telling me that states elect the President rather than the majority of the electorate. Conservatives also tell me that this is not a democracy, but a republic. I don't believe the concepts are exclusive of one another. We are a democratic republic, with the emphasis on democracy.

                These are contentious times politically, very well polarized as not the case in over a century. So, what if the 3 million vote majority that has been overruled by EC in 2016 becomes 15 to 20 million in 2024? It is mathematically possible and trend is heading this way and I don't believe that is just an aberration.

                Trump is having problems already as will anyone not elected with the support of the majority of the voters. It does not inspire confidence and unity in the our futurecourse, when a candidate receiving the fewer votes can win the Presidency.

                While I am opposed to tampering with it right now, I am concerned that the credibility of the electoral process will be under suspicion. Whose 'better judgement' is supplanting that of the majority of the electorate? And what does that portend as to government being responsive to the will of the voters?

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Plus, when you're attempting to bypass the intent of the constitution it isn't so simple as to just change it.  One must be very careful to stay within the technical aspects of the law when subverting the intent of that same law.

            In this case, then, the intent was to "equalize" smaller states and it is the goal to subvert that into becoming rule by majority.  The answer is to work within states, changing state laws rather than the constitution; the hope is that a consensus of enough states will indeed subvert the intent of the Constitution.  Might even work - it just depends on what's in it for the politicians at the state level rather than the federal.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              If the "intent of the constitution" is important to you, then that's even more reason for the current system to change, because  the current system doesn't meet that original intent.

              Sure, the intent was to "equalize" smaller states (an oversimplification but close enough) and ensure smaller states are as politically relevant as the larger ones. How is that working out?

              In 2012, the number of campaign events held in the 12 smallest states were*:

              Wyoming: 0
              Vermont: 0
              North Dakota: 0
              Alaska: 0
              South Dakota: 0
              District of Columbia: 0
              Delaware: 0
              Rhode Island: 0
              Hawaii: 0
              Maine: 0
              Idaho: 0

              In 2016:

              Wyoming: 0
              Vermont: 0
              North Dakota: 0
              Alaska: 0
              South Dakota: 0
              District of Columbia: 0
              Delaware: 0
              Rhode Island: 0
              Hawaii: 0
              Maine: 0
              Idaho: 0

              Because these are "safe" states for one side or the other under the current system, candidates have no reason to campaign in them. Instead, in both 2012 and 2016 they paid attention to 12 "swing" or "battleground" states only(1)

              Likewise, in 2012 the Obama campaign spent 99.6% of their TV advertising budget in 10 states. Romney spent 99.9% in 10 states. None of those states were among the 12 smallest(2).

              This does not meet the intent of the constitution, where under the current system the smallest states are politically irrelevant. The National Popular Vote Compact maintains the electoral college, and ensures that every vote in every state is of equal importance.

              (1) http://www.fairvote.org/presidential_tr … ign_events
              (2) http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016

    4. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      While there is always a debate for and against the EC system every election, it's interesting to see what the political parties were saying in 2013 after Obama won the election (again):

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 … ntial.html

    5. Misfit Chick profile image91
      Misfit Chickposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      The point is, most people didn't come out to vote - from any state. Trump basically won the electorial college by default with a measley 20% of the countrywide vote. Hillary's popular vote was only a little over 20% of the countrywide vote - so what does that say about America?

      We're not even SORT of united - we're VERY divided, despite the fact that Trump & his cohorts like to rant & rave about 'winning big'. This win was not a big win, it was barely-won by the slivers of right-wing militants & uber-elitist Bernie supporters (100% FREE EVERYTHING, please!!). Just a bunch of angry white men having an uber-time together in the political jocker room.

      I've already seen many Trump voters express regret and even apologize to the rest of the country. Those seem to be the people who really thought that Trump would 'become more presidential' after he was elected; and since he hasn't - and in fact, has brought out the GOP war regime (and is threatening Planned Parenthood) - are really regretting their votes. And, I'd guess, they are also the most scared if something goes wrong. I mean, if he manages to start WW3 in the face of so many 'I told you so's' - that kind of guilt will probably be just about unbareable.

      I think everyone needs to relax. Trump isn't in office, yet - and his own party isn't that thrilled with him. He isn't exactly part of the GOP buddies with this same-sex marriage support & consistent weekly (and sometimes DAILY) lies (really? 100% of his foundation donations go to charity? BS!).

      He will have as difficult time accomplishing what he wants to as Obama did - because the president doesn't do a damn thing on his own. That office is not designed to be a dictator's post. I predict Trump will have as much adversity within his presidency as anyone else ever has. He's fighting several fronts, with the one strong front that he has - angry white men - soon to be overwhelmed by the rest of the country. Thank God they are the minority. I've never cussed out OR laughed at another president so much in my life - and again, he isn't even president, yet. I can't wait to see what happens. I hope they eventually impeach him and give his job to Ivanka, LoL!

      Enjoy the show. I love posting these.

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337607.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13337608.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337611.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337613.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13337614.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337615.png

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337617.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13337618.png

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337619.png

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337621.png

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13337622.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337625.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337627.png

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337629.png

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13337633.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13337634.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13337636.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13337638_f1024.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13337640_f1024.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13337644.png

      1. The Old Guard profile image80
        The Old Guardposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        And this from a woman that supports one of the most corrupt candidates that ever ran for President.
        hillary killary was guilty of treason, lying while running for office, hiring thugs to disrupt Trumps rallies, stealing debate questions and calling most Americans "deplorable".
        The classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
        Carry on misfit, support your corrupt fellow democrats - we surely could have used another corrupt politician like we've had in the last 8 years in the form of obamama.
        Why you democrats love corruption is one of the mysteries of American politics.
        "Love" trumps Trump while you riot and call everyone bigots is one of the funniest things I've sen in decades.
        Carry on with your great, white, feminist hypocrisy.
        I love a good laugh.

        1. Ewent profile image81
          Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Say Old Guard, do you also beat your wife on weekends after a good boozer? Trump raped a 12 year old girl who "magically" disappeared. Don't you EVER DARE accuse Hillary of ANY crime unless you have proof substantiated by COURT documents and her prison record. Men like you are sicko mentalities whose Mommies, like Mommy Trump, spent too many years doting over their little boys.

          Then, Daddy got hold of you and started to shape you into what he calls a man...one with a big mouth who always blames the nearest person in your vicinity for what you do. Get help narcissist. Hillary is no longer YOUR personal whipping post. Who is next? Elizabeth Warren? Let me guess Mr. Testicles the Size of raisins, anything with ovaries cannot EVER be president, right?

          You got your fun using Hillary for your whipping post. What will you little morons do when the Senate and House have a female majority? What you men always do? Run to a corner of the room for some prime time bonding?

          Get professional help for you misogyny and that narcissism. Mommy's little angel turned into Daddy's bad boy. NOT.

          1. The Old Guard profile image80
            The Old Guardposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            If Trump raped a 12 year old, he'd be in jail.
            Facts have shown corruption within the leadership of the DNC and corruption within the hillary killary franchise of laundering money.
            My question to people like yourself is why you allow your "leaders" a free pass when corruption is shown and proven, while dissing trump for words that have little meaning. They're no different then the thugs the DNC hires to disrupt the GOP rallies.
            Little connections that snowflakes like yourself seem to be able to ignore.
            So much for your "love trumps hate" as your bigotry and hatred shines through.
            Carry on, snowflake

            1. Ewent profile image81
              Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              The case was not allowed to come to court because Bannon threatened the girl he raped. She has a witness to Trump's and Bannon's threats. That how you boys deal with women you think you must always control? RAPE and grabbing their genitals? He is going to MAKE AMERICA GRATE. And you men will be the first ones women will string up in public squares like they did to Mussolini and his playmate Carla Petacci.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                You are making slanderous claims that you cannot possibly support if facing a jury looking for actual evidence.  Is that how women in general perform - behave like little girls incapable of understanding reason and truth, satisfied to levy false claims to maintain their hatred and sexism?

                Not even Trump has exhibited the raw sexist attitude that you are.

              2. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Is it all men in general we are supposed to hate enough to lynch or do you have specific groups you've marked out for mass slaughter?

                1. PhoenixV profile image80
                  PhoenixVposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  I would like something that at least resembles a trial before I am executed for being male.  Also I would want Hillary for my lawyer. I hear she is good at getting bad guys. off the hook.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    LOL. You'll need to check with the Queen of Hearts. She appears to have summary execution in mind for you guys.

            2. Dean Traylor profile image83
              Dean Traylorposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              The story that the DNC hired thugs to disrupt the GOP rallies is a hoax. Even the satirist who created the bogus Craigslist ad where this story came from cofessed to it.

    6. donotfear profile image92
      donotfearposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      You just made the whole concept of the Electoral college clear and concise.  Thank you.  You are the first person who has explained it in a way I can fully understand. 

      I agree.

    7. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      "Obviously, most STATES want Trump's concept of leadership."

      Or did not want Clinton's. This election still had a poor turnout at 55%. It was a 20 year low. So yes the popular vote went to Clinton while the corrected Electoral vote went to Trump but it was hardly a consensus of the whole electorate.

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/ … index.html

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
    Kathleen Cochranposted 9 months ago

    She got 44% of the vote in my home state of Georgia. It is one of the most conservative Republican states in the union.  She carried my county, which is the home of Newt Gingrich and the John Birch Society.  A majority is a majority whomever it is made up of nationally.

    He's going to be president.  But you do have to accept that the majority of voters did not choose him, which equals no mandate to do anything.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      The "voters" in Presidential elections in the United States are the states themselves.  And they voted something like 3 to 1 for Trump.

      If we look at the results county by county it's even worse:


      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13332720_f248.jpg

    2. colorfulone profile image91
      colorfuloneposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      When early voting started in Georgia, there were complaints that voting machines were flipping votes from Trump to Clinton, or the machines wouldn't let people vote for Trump.  Republicans were warned ahead of time to watch for election fraud and voter fraud, so they were alert and used cell phones to get footage and report it.   It is not over, Trump had many people providing evidence of fraud, not just in Georgia.  There will be legal actions taken by the Trump Administration.  That needs to be cleaned up. 

      Newt Gingrich, is a very smart man, when he tells the truth he does it eloquently, but he is just another corrupt politician that can't be trusted to be honest.  I don't know who his puppet master is...but I'm fairly sure he is a globalist pretending to be a conservative.  He may have been compromised.

  3. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 9 months ago

    Scares me how militant and mad those who claim to be the left sound.

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      But you turned a deaf ear to the guy that sing the praises of the Right. From your "balanced" perspective, why is the left always to blame?

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Reread with an unbiased eye and get back to me on that. You are coming off incredibly mad and ready to brawl.

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          I have and you are right, I was a little hard, but right wing supposed statements of fact stick in my craw.

          I have been around long enough to see where certain topics bring out comments from you or anybody else that are less than pretty. For me, the rightwinger and his or her assertions does it for me, every time.

          Don't attack California!!!

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            smile Points well taken.

            And I'm sorry but California is not a state I can defend. I've eaten their potato salad and their stuffing. They are in definite need of criticism.

          2. Ewent profile image81
            Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            NY and NJ also voted solidly for Clinton. But, California is one of the states with the greatest number of electoral college electors. The reality you will never get any right winger to admit is that Hillary WON the popular vote. So, posting that it was ONLY California that brought her an increase of votes is a lie. But, from the fact that these right wingers accept lying as something holy, right and good, should not surprise anyone why they chose Trump.

            1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
              Dont Taze Me Broposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              FACT is the race wasn't for the popular vote so no one can say with a straight face they know Hillary would have won the popular vote if it was. Read your constitution, oh that's right, the left doesn't accept the constitution - they want to get rid of it. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/16 … of-states/

              Fact is if right wingers accept lying as something holy, right and good they'd be in the democrat party voting overwelmingly for Hillary, the author of lies, deception and corruption.

            2. Credence2 profile image83
              Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Thanks, my concern is that this advantage for conservatives and the right may be fixed in stone, and as Don said, as partisan lines become more distinct a situation that appeared once in a hundred years or so will become more frequent. The disparity between the popular vote and the electoral college more stark. The shell game will allow too many victories for conservatives and their candidates at the expense of popular sovereignty and the will of the majority of the electorate.

              1. Ewent profile image81
                Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                It isn't fixed at all. Here is a very interesting link regarding how the Electoral College can be abolished: https://www.c-span.org/video/?419632-1/ … l-college. It was Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale Constitutional Law professor on this panel who stated that no Congressional approval is needed to abolish the Electoral College. This was also supported by Jamie Raskin, a law professor and Jack N. Rakove,  Pulitzer Prize winner in political science.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Is it supported by the SCOTUS?  That would be seem to be a little more important than some college professor.

                  1. Ewent profile image81
                    Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    It doesn't need to be. Read your US Constitution. The First Amendment Right allows any citizen the right to petition government "for a redress of grievances." The SC is the Judiciary branch so they would not be needed to abolish a legislative branch since they have neither executive nor legislative power. Actually, the president of the United States as part of his/her executive duties can also abolish the Electoral College.

                2. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks, I am going to check out the link. I certainly hope that change can be forthcoming.

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
    Kathleen Cochranposted 9 months ago

    I'd just like my vote to count.  Right, left, or middle.  Republicans are absolute on this issue because twice recently it has put their man in office when he actually lost.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Kathleen I understand. It does seem unfair. But when you look at the county by county breakdown it makes you wonder how fair a system would be which allows big cities to hold too much sway. Don't you think it would have been odd, with so much of the country voting republican on this one, for California to have pushed it in the other direction? Don't you think that system will create just as much rancor as this one, if not more?

      1. Credence2 profile image83
        Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

        You have to ask your self a question why are people different simply because of where they reside?California has vast stretches that can certainly be considered rural. And I am sure that they vote GOP. There simply are not enough of them

        While, I don't live in the city, I don't see why a individual farmer's vote is worth more than urban dweller? That is what EC does.

        There is not an issue of too much sway, it is far more simpler, more people vote along one line verses another. Why are we actually question the principle of one man one vote? All these other premises are less than democratic.

        Why should EL Paso County have an advantage over Denver County outside of consideration given based on the relative population of that County? That is not fair.

        I am not that anxious to protect the political and ideological beliefs of the country mice during election time at my expense.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          I get it. I think both arguments have an incredible amount of merit.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          "You have to ask your self a question why are people different simply because of where they reside?"

          A good question, and if we could answer it we might find some really deep insight into the human psyche. 

          "I am not that anxious to protect the political and ideological beliefs of the country mice during election time at my expense."

          And those country mice aren't particularly interested in protecting political and ideological beliefs of the steel and concrete dwellers of another world; a world far, far removed from the one they occupy and work in.  The perception, right or wrong, that the values those mice hold dear - hard work, family, self reliance, a helping hand to those that need it, community - just don't exist in the rat mazes of the city. 

          Perhaps further states rights should be considered and fewer federal rules and programs?  Let the cities live as they would and the rural counties the same?

          1. Credence2 profile image83
            Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I certainly would be interested in that dive into the human psyche and the study of cause and effect.

            As for the 'perception' and it is just that, the country mice need to work harder to make alliances with the  greater number of city mice through persuasion. If the minority on a side of an issue wants to win, they always have the ability to expand their horizons and such.

            The Bill of Rights protects the minority from excesses of popular sovereignty, that is good enough for me. The rest is politics. The President is elected by all of us, the country folks do not get to win by default.

            That will be another reason why the Trump transition will be hindered is this perception that he was not the choice of the majority of the American voters. That, too, is just a perception but it is quite real. That is not going to help.

            bTW, I state for the record that I was opposed to any tampering with the electoral college during this election cycle. But, as for the future......

            As for changing or reducing the federal presence regarding rules and regulation relative to the states,
            for me it depends specifically on what it is you want to change or eliminate.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              "As for changing or reducing the federal presence regarding rules and regulation relative to the states,
              for me it depends specifically on what it is you want to change or eliminate."

              Well, of course it does!  But look at gun control: the you city folk kill each other with depressing regularity, and that you have convinced the city rats that taking guns away will stop the death toll, is all fine and good.  City people are very often quite afraid of that bit of steel and want it gone from their city.  But what does that have to do with the rancher in Montana or Wyoming? 

              Or highway speed limits: they are set by politicians in metropolitan areas...to apply to an entire state or (at one time) the nation.  What makes perfect sense when there are 1,000 cars per mile makes none at all when there are 2.

              1. The Old Guard profile image80
                The Old Guardposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                What we all tend to forget is this - when the country was founded and designed, states had rights. They could easily pull their Senators and shut down any action within the Federal Government. It was only by states permission that the Federal Government had any power.
                This was pretty much demolished after the Civil War. And as Lincoln stated over and over, his goal, and he was dictatorial about it, was to preserve the Union - at whatever cost.
                In other words, take away the right of a states succession, and they would now have to submit to the will of the Federal Government.
                This was further set in place when Senators were no longer appointed by State Legislators but by popular vote - the Senators could no longer be frired if they were not abiding by will of their state.
                The electoral College was specifically designed so that more populated states (Like California and New York) could not usurp power and tell the other 48 states how to mange their affairs.
                Think states rights when thinking of the Electoral College, vs. democratic rule. We were never a "democracy" we were and are a Republic.
                A Union of States, where in the beginning the States allowed the power to be given to the Federal Government.
                Quite contrary to the situation we have today, where the Federal Government is the ultimate power, and the states are now subservient to the will of the Federal Government.
                It was never, ever supposed to be like we have today. In fact, the founders warned us over and over again of the mistake of giving the Federal Government too much power, like we have today.

                http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13334669_f248.jpg

    2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Actually you can't say they lost because the races were never for the popular vote and if they were campaigns on both sides would have been run totally differently - no one can say what the popular vote outcome would have been if the electoral college didn't exist so it is totally irrelevant, except to people like you who base their beliefs on their feelings and ignore the facts. After all the recent educational discussions about the popular vote and the electoral you chose to ignore the truth and live in a dream world of sore losers who could care less about the constitution and the reasons why it is like it is.

      1. The Old Guard profile image80
        The Old Guardposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Again, it has to do with states rights - that's what people forget.
        The only power that the Federal Government has is granted to it by the states.
        This was the key to the Republic - it had to do with the rights of the states, then the power of the Federal Government.
        It has everything to do with those that argue about popular vs. the Electoral College.
        It's not "irrelevant", it's totally relevant to the mess we're into today.
        A centralized government usurping the powers of the states was adamantly opposed by those who set up the Constitution.
        Hence, the left's goal is a centralized government without consideration for states or individual rights. This has been going on since Lincoln and the Civil War.
        It's what makes the left's arguments about most things ridiculous when forced to understand how the laws, rules and regulations were set up in the Constitution.
        This is what made us stand apart from every other form of government ever created - the Federal Government derives it's power by permission.
        It has now morphed into a centralized government that derives it's power by force and coercion.
        The Electoral College is one of the only things left from the Constitution that forces the Federal Government, in a small way, to bend to the will of the states and not to a popular vote or movement.

  5. Perspycacious profile image76
    Perspycaciousposted 9 months ago

    Well said by "The Old Guard"!  President-elect Trump won 30 of the 50 states, if my memory still serves another old guard. In terms of states won, that is a landslide, too.  How do the Republicans vs. Democrats fare in terms of states with high indebtedness, and in terms of states with the highest unemployment, and states with the highest rates of poverty, single heads of household, abortion rates, and number of welfare recipients.
    I suspect that says something about the ideology and effectiveness of the two political parties.

  6. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
    Kathleen Cochranposted 9 months ago

    LtL- You make good points.  There are negatives on every side. But I still think the least flawed is one person, one vote so every vote counts and 3M of them aren't disgaurded.

    1. The Old Guard profile image80
      The Old Guardposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Once again, you need to understand how the country was set up and for what reasons.
      The goal was NOT to have a centralized government nor a populated state telling less populated states how the Federal Government was to rule.
      The U.S.A. was NOT a democracy but a Republic - a Union of States.
      Hence the States gave permission for the Federal Government to rule.
      And each state was given a portion of power - the Electoral College - to help reign in the Federal Government's power.
      It's not that your vote does not count, it is that the majority of States - which give their permission for the power of the Federal Government - sways the vote to a more "even" rule throughout the nation.
      Your call that the popular vote should hold sway over the Federal Government would mean that 14 of the states would be telling the other 36 states how the Federal Government was supposed to operate.
      As a Union of States, this is unfair to the States.
      It may seem fairer to you as a voter, but again, the U.S.A. was never a Democracy, but a Republic.
      If you want democracy, then you need to write a new Constitution.
      And that would require the approval of 36 states that disagreed with your "majority" of voters.
      The Electoral College did what it was supposed to do this election - it allowed States their rights over a minority rule - 36 states for Trump, 14 states against.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      How much of "every vote counts" is no more than perception, usually from one who lost?

      If you live in an area that votes strongly D, but you'r an R, is your vote lost?  You've complained about the other - you vote D but everyone else around goes R, so your vote is "lost". 

      Does it make sense that a handful of counties in a dozen states could and would have absolute control over Presidential elections?  One person, one vote and that's exactly what would happen - are the rest of the votes "disgaurded" or do they still count because you like the D's to win?

      1. Credence2 profile image83
        Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

        It is interesting to note that prior to Trump's victory, the hoards on the right, including Trump, swore that the system was rigged. I wouldN't be hearing all of this oratory about the upholding the Constitution if the system did not provide the rightwinger and conservatives the advantage.

        So should we have 1 man/two votes in regard to the hayseed part of the country, merely because they are underpopulated? What is this rightwing thing that defines a 'state' as an entity independent of the people that reside in the country at large? So, if the Presidential decision is not made by the majority of the nation's residents, who is it being made by in their name, so-called?

        The States Rights stuff sounds fine until it was found as the justification for slavery and denial of civil rights. There is a limit to this as most conservatives never seem willing to acknowlege. So, what is your and the Old Guard's take upon this?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          "So should we have 1 man/two votes in regard to the hayseed part of the country, merely because they are underpopulated?"

          And those that live in grossly overpopulated areas, areas with so many people that they verge in insanity just as too many rats shoved into a single cage do, should have absolute control over those with values in line with reality rather than a pretend utopia?  I don't think so.

          "So should we have 1 man/two votes in regard to the hayseed part of the country, merely because they are underpopulated?"

          I didn't vote twice - who can you point to that did? 

          "What is this rightwing thing that defines a 'state' as an entity independent of the people that reside in the country at large?"

          Ask the founders of the country; those that wrote the original documents.  States' rights isn't a "rightwing" thing, as much as those "progressing" towards total federal control would have us think - it was and is a matter of self government and responsibility.

          Yes, there is a limit to states rights, but it isn't simply as little as liberals can manage to leave behind their swath of destruction.

          1. Credence2 profile image83
            Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

            "And those that live in grossly overpopulated areas, areas with so many people that they verge in insanity just as too many rats shoved into a single cage do, should have absolute control over those with values in line with reality rather than a pretend utopia?  I don't think so."

            What is this idea of grossly overpopulated, such bias? Just because people live in larger cities is not justification to believe as if they belong to another species. "Reality" from the rightwinger's standpoint is anything but..... again the idea conservatives have that urban dwellers are monolithic politically needs to be examined more closely. If your vote in Boise has more weight than mine in Los Angeles, it certainly is not one man/one vote. So what do we call it, is the term "republic" an excuse to dismiss the democratic foundation of our society? People have to work, Wilderness, and do not have the luxury of the idyllic life in the countryside.

            "Ask the founders of the country; those that wrote the original documents.  States' rights isn't a "rightwing" thing, as much as those "progressing" towards total federal control would have us think - it was and is a matter of self government and responsibility."

            I see your point, but where I strike the balance between the two is going to be different from where you would and that is the conflict. The founders of this country had no problem accommodating slavery as part of their declarations regarding the rights of man. So, I don't give anyone a carte blanc.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              "What is this idea of grossly overpopulated, such bias?"

              Seemed a reasonable response to "..in regard to the hayseed part of the country, merely because they are underpopulated?"  If you find gross exaggerations and name calling to be a part of reasonable discourse, I should probably follow suit, don't you think?

              "I see your point, but where I strike the balance between the two"

              Cred, any "balance" you might strike is going to be far down the road of federal control of people's lives: control that does nothing but maintain and increase the power of the politicians, while increasing the size and number of chains used to ensure that power base.  Using slavery, and it's evils, to somehow justify those chains doesn't cut it.

              1. Credence2 profile image83
                Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Well, now, your man Trump is on stage, let's just see how well his concept of the New Federalism will be embraced by the 'press' and all of that the conservatives see  as mere rabble, but that the more enlightened on the left see as the foundation of the concept of popular sovereignty.

                He is not going to be given a great deal of time before all the weapons of the left are turned against him and they are formidable.

                I only agree to give time for him to prove to me that he is more than just another GOP sock puppet. If he fails the test, then he is to be fed to the wolves.... I will make that determation sooner, rather than later.

                Hayseed is not a derogatory term, in of itself, but it is a descriptive one. It is not like referring to city dwellers as rats...

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Nope.  Trump was tried and convicted by hating liberals before he even won the election, let alone after taking office and actually doing something.  Unlike Clinton, proven guilty of violating security protocols, Trump only had to exist to be demonized and found wanting.

                  "Hayseed is not a derogatory term, in of itself, but it is a descriptive one."

                  Guess that depends on the speaker - personally I find "rats" to be quite descriptive (feeding off other rats, killing them when desired, and taking whatever their little minds conceive of) and we DO know what happens to rats when overpopulated.  But why are you surprised or offended when you use offensive terms (known to be offensive to the people you apply them to) and then have the same offensive style used right back?  Because conservatives are expected to be decent people, above the use of such language while liberals aren't? smile

                  1. Credence2 profile image83
                    Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    I have seen the 'decency' of conservative throughout the Trump campaign, there has been nothing there to recommend them, to be sure.

    3. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      But three million may not have voted that way if the race was for just the popular vote - can't you understand that? No votes were discarded - that is just a straw man. Really, how many times do you have to be told before you understand there was no election for the popular vote, no election based on the popular vote, no candidate ran for the popular vote and if there was no electoral college but only a popular vote needed to win NO ONE can say who would have won that vote.

      1. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        No such thing as a popular vote. Its electoral and hillary was not physically capable of the strategy it takes to win it.  If there was a popular vote maybe hillary and team msm could have won by dominating the media "for free " in key cities. Then I woukd have moved to Vancouver. Not like a liberal. Id actually do it.

        1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
          Dont Taze Me Broposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Really, so true. It's crazy that despite all the revealed collusion and conniving by the Hillary campaign and the DNC that there are still people trying to argue that Hillary actually could have won anything - Bernie would have been the candidate if the DEMOCRAT primary wasn't rigged for Hillary! Don't hear Cochran and her ilk crying that her in own party no one cared about votes for Bernie being discarded lol. No one said Obama was illegitimate when in 2008 he lost the primary popular vote to Hillary either - democrats, nothing but duplicitous sore losers, we all wish they moved to Canada like some swore they would.

          1. colorfulone profile image91
            colorfuloneposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Why aren't they happy that Hillary Clinton lost the most 'Faithless Electors' in 100+ years in history.  She didn't make history the way she wanted but she made history.   God works in mysterious ways!

            Defending the USA:
            Clinton lost 5 of Her Electors
            3 to Colin Powell (WA)
            1 to Bernie (Hawaii)
            1 to Faith Spotted Eagle (WA)

            I giggle about this, it makes me happy!

            1. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Msm didnt mention this at all. Now thats strange.

            2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
              Dont Taze Me Broposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              I know, that is the most hilarious thing. While the loonies are making a case for Trump's electors to shrug their constitutional duties Hillary's electors are the ones who do it against her 4/1 of Trumps traitors. it must really gall the Clintons that in the end she was beat by only 100,000 votes that were cast in swing states especially since she got millions more than Trump in states that didn't matter one bit in the end. lol (Probably because the illegals that voted voted in the wrong states!)

              Sweet justice if you ask me.

              1. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Yea its quite embarrassing that msm went on and on about trump potentially losing electors, eg faithless in texas etc. Then the obvious habitual media blackout on hillary being humiliated again by losing 4-1 more electors than trump. I was reading an article about how a particularly Goofy search engine had the fix in for hillary too.

                Even with nearly the entire media entertainment information industry * RIGGING* it for hillary even AFTER the election is quite embarrassing.

                Im glad i dont identify as democrat.  It would be sickening.

              2. colorfulone profile image91
                colorfuloneposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Sweet indeed.  Project Veritas founder, James O'Keefe has audio and video evidence of election rigging, voter rigging, voter fraud and racketeering by the DNC and the Clinton campaign in several states.  He filed a lawsuit...Trump has filed a lawsuit also, and maybe others as well. 

                Hillary didn't win anything except the booby-prize, she certainly did not win a popular vote honestly, IMHO.   Obama had even gone live to tell illegals they could vote as citizens.  Huh? 

                But, the liberals ignore all that, or something else.

                1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
                  Dont Taze Me Broposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  I'm hearing Hillary is planning a run in 2020! Hillary is a slow learner. See she figured out she lost to Obama in the democrat primary 2008 because Obama outsmarted her by getting to the delegates so then she learned and she rigged the delegates for 2016 primary against Bernie, but lost the election to Trump because of the electoral college. Now in 2020 she'll learn from that and try to rig the electoral college in her favor somehow.

                  I can see the 2020 slogan now - Vote "Hilarity" for president, THE JOKE'S ON YOU.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    I believe the parties are facades. The lines between the factions, behind the facades, will be indiscernible and nothing left to chance. If it wasnt that way already.

  7. PhoenixV profile image80
    PhoenixVposted 9 months ago

    I wish it was the United Cities of LA. NY and Chicago. The rest of us secede. They could have their warped media. Their crime. Import their food from somewhere else. Import all their needs.They keep the worst of the worst politics. The cities would turn into liberal oasis's of utopia.  Yea, utopias.

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Lets not limit it there, can I add
      Boston, DC, Atlanta, Miami, Detroit, Cleveland, Philly, Twin Cities, St Louis, Denver, Portland, Seattle, Houston, SF, Milwaukee, Honolulu, San Diego, just to name a few, after all this you may not find a whole lot left to 'secede'

      1. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        By all means do us all a favor and take places like DC and Detroit.etc Probably all fit in the state of maine. Do us all a favor and build a wall around em. Not to keep people out but to keep people in. The rest of us want to ban the garbage news and entertainment, the crime and politics. Its all yours. Within a week you could spot/locate the cities by the smoke plumes on the horizon.

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          It beats the hell over those folks with a Hooterville mindset. Too many Okies from Muskogee will drag us all backwards.

          While you get after the degenerate media and pop culture, what you consider garbage, don't toss out the baby with the bath water. Everybody knows rightwingers are terrorfied at a free press and the ideas of dissent. I put Newt Gingrich right up there with Joseph Goebbels, as Trump's propaganda minister. I wish I could provide a little forward pressure on my time machine to see how all of this will turn out.

          1. PhoenixV profile image80
            PhoenixVposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Im all for dissent. But free press? Free for hillary. Free news. Free late night talk shows. Free comedy shows. Free movie propaganda. Its endless and aggressive. I cant turn on the tv without seeing liberal social engineering and negative portrayals of conservatives. Either greedy business suits but mostly toothless banjo players. Tv is running a game. Now they are ramping it up. Quite frankly I dont want some lady gaga type in a meat suit playing with the kiddos heads.

            1. Credence2 profile image83
              Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

              I don't know about that 'liberal media', Trump won to some extent because he was held to lower standard than Hillary. Who could have said all the outrageous bovine excrement in public and still get a free pass?

          2. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Wow. We really are headed for a civil war. I never realized how much city people looked down on everyone else.

            1. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Not completely their fault. Tv, news, internet 99% of msm is running a 24/7 HEADGAME.  I implore liberals or democrats as one human being to another. Turn off the tv for 2 weeks.

              1. Credence2 profile image83
                Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Trump would love to see the press and media deep sixed

                Then we could only get our information from The Chosen One, the horse's mouth. That is why he will continue to have rallies and employ goons for protection beyond the Secret Service after he takes the oath. Then, he will be free to lie like a rug, without challenge or controversy.

            2. Credence2 profile image83
              Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, but urban dwellers have been called rats that needed to be fenced up. I don't know, I keep hearing that "Green Acres" jingle playing in my head.....

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                So I guess that makes you Eva.

                1. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  I can't be Eva, she was just as ridiculous as her country neighbors. She could not make flapjacks or a decent cup of coffee.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Remember the car broke down and they used her hotcakes for a head gasket.

  8. PhoenixV profile image80
    PhoenixVposted 9 months ago

    http://stlresociety.com/files/2011/09/Escape-from-New-York-Saint-Louis.jpg

    Popular vote 2024. Corrupt Chicago Thug Style Politics on Steroids coming to a theatre near you.

  9. profile image60
    Bottupposted 9 months ago

    Are you suggesting that Donald Trump has anything to do with reality? The man who sexually assaults women, starts a nuclear arms race with a Twitter post, who is worth $8 billion less than if he had stuck his family inheritance in the US stock market. And I could go on. And who lost the popular vote by a record margin. What reality do you inhabit? A parallel universe?

  10. PhoenixV profile image80
    PhoenixVposted 9 months ago

    If you ever get tired of kale smoothies and. looking the other way to people living under the overpasses c'mon down to Muskogee. I will smoke a brisket and we can grab an absolut and 7 or w/e your poison is if any.

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I now live in the south side of the Mason Dixon, and the BBQ is to die for, I will give them that.

  11. profile image61
    Charles J Stuckeyposted 9 months ago

    As an independent voter, this allows me to see the rediculous extremes of the 2 major parties. Let's use this as an example:  Imagine the 3 monkeys (see no evil, hear no . . etc.) Now imagine the chimps belong to the FAR left. The chimps may be quoted as to say: "See no logic - Hear no common sense - Speak no facts."  Next, the monkeys on the far right:  "See only my opinoin - Hear only my opinion - Speak only my opinoin . .  amen"   Of course, it's POSSIBLE that some of these quotes could be interchangeable, in almost any combination!

  12. DzyMsLizzy profile image92
    DzyMsLizzyposted 9 months ago

    The OP's topic and subsequent comments seem to be all about the states;  who won which state and why; as well as the function of the EC.

    No one seems to have noticed that the other MAIN reason for their existence, votes and voters notwithstanding, is to prevent an unqualified person from gaining the presidency!

    In this, they have failed miserably in their sworn duty!

    1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      WRONG - stopped Hillary, didn't it!

      Their constitutional duty is to vote for the candidate for whom they are pledged. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

      This time, 4/1 electors choose not to vote for Hillary as opposed to those who chose not to vote for Trump - seems even the Democrat electors 4/1 disagree with your assessment and agree with me,  that Hillary was unqualified. Are you too dzy to understand that?

      1. Don W profile image82
        Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        The definition of qualified is not "voted for by an elector". It is:

        "Having the qualities, accomplishments, etc., that fit a person for some function, office, or the like."(1)

        "Fitted (as by training or experience) for a given purpose"(2)

        "Having the appropriate qualifications for an office, position, or task."(3)

        "Meeting the proper standards and requirements and training for an office or position or task"(4)

        "Able to do something, because you have the knowledge, skill, or experience that is needed"(5)

        So by definition, Trump is unqualified for the role of president (unless you change the definition of "qualified"). The fact Trump was elected, doesn't change that. It just means someone unqualified is going to be president, and the Electoral College has failed to meet the one of the original intentions for it, which was to ensure: ". . . that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." (Alexander Hamilton, 1788)(6)

        Is any of that unclear?

        (1) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/qualified
        (2) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qualified
        (3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/qualified
        (4) https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/qualified
        (5) http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/d … /qualified
        (6) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

        1. Dean Traylor profile image83
          Dean Traylorposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Amen. When the dust settles, I'M hoping people will dump the the liberal/conservative banter and nonsense and come to realize who has been put into office. I'm only hoping that some people will dump their ideological thinking and get a better of what's happening and what we stand to lose....you know, democracy.

      2. DzyMsLizzy profile image92
        DzyMsLizzyposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Wrong, yourself--DRUMPF is the one who is unqualified!  Has held NO offices in government at any level; his rants during the debates showed him to be ignorant of many aspects of the Constitution, and his behavior and temper are more suited to an adolescent than someone seeking to be POTUS!

        I will not bandy words any further with the right-wing propaganda machine and its brainwashed supporters.

        1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
          Dont Taze Me Broposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Good riddance. Anyone who thinks the queen of corruption who belongs in jail. not in public office, is qualified has no qualifications to bandy words about anything.

          1. profile image61
            Charles J Stuckeyposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            HOW LONG can this go on? I HATED IT when Obama was re-elected, but, damn . . . I quit bitchin' about it the next day for Chist sakes. Please, would all of you (I'm sorry to say) totally ignorant people, who actually wanted Clinton elected, shut the f*** up, once and for all? Thank you. It's over now.

            1. Dean Traylor profile image83
              Dean Traylorposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              No. It doesn't work that way Charles. Ignorance is being silent when evil comes knocking on your door. You may pound your chest and think by telling people to get over it or STFU will get it done. At this moment, I'm watching what's going on. Too much at stake. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else to b**** and moan how you can't stand it.

            2. Ewent profile image81
              Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Charles, unless you have court documents, all you prove is that testicles is what YOU males of the misogynyistal mentalities believe is the ONLY qualification for leadership. Will you also find some nasty smear for Elizabeth Warren? Course you good ole boys love the wind up Dixiebelles and Corn Pone Queens who act on command like Nikki Haley. Take away her kissing up to those good ole boys and all you've got is a woman who can't think for herself. And that is what MEN like you hate about Hillary. She needs NO man to think for her. In fact, she has proven beyond a doubt that she is far superior to the good ole boys like Gingrich, Guiliani and that pigmaster Trump whose tramp wife is now First Lady. Proud of yourself Charlie Ole Boy?

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Got to agree with you on that point. Hillary does outshine pretty much every other politician in her ability to lie, cheat and steal and get away with it.

  13. colorfulone profile image91
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    "I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 
    ~ The Pledge of Allegiances is to the Republic
    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13338770.jpg

  14. stephenteacher profile image84
    stephenteacherposted 9 months ago

    This is why, too, that each state gets two senators, and The Senate is the most powerful body. Two senators from Wyoming, and two from NY.

    500,000 people get 2 senators that are as powerful as two from NY's 20 million.

    In fact, some of the most powerful senators are from western states that are sparsely populated.

    Look at Harry Reid. He was the Senate Majority leader....

    Mississippi is a small state, too, and Thad Cochran from MS is one of THE most powerful senators.

    Just read colleges are getting rid of US History requirement. So sad. These people do not want to know the hows and why as to our Constitution and it's set up.

    So people in CA have no clue as to why the electoral college is the thing that matters. NOT 4 million more voters around LA and SF.

    And I think even Democrats would say they don't want one state electing a President.

    But then, virtually all other so-called democracies in the world are not democratic when electing a pure leader. Most Americans would have no clue that Theresa May was not elected by any common voter in Great Britain. Other countries form coalitions from elected officials, then they themselves form a government.

    There is NOTHING unique about an electoral college.

  15. Rock_nj profile image91
    Rock_njposted 9 months ago

    Just because you live in the most populated state, California, your vote shouldn't carry the same weight as other Americans?  That makes no sense.  1 person 1 vote is democracy.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      So is one state, one vote.  As we are a Republic of States it would seem reasonable to do just that.

      "And to the Republic for which it stands"...

      1. Rock_nj profile image91
        Rock_njposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Not proportional per the population if one state one vote (Delaware should count just as much as Texas?), so not fair.  I understand that pure democracy has it's faults, but there's nothing inherently wrong with one person one vote electing a leader for a country.  We do it that way for the state executives, that being Governors.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          And the state is the basic political entity.  Not the federal government - that is a republic of 50 states.

          1. Rock_nj profile image91
            Rock_njposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Do you seriously think that is a fairer system, 1 state 1 vote vs the current Electoral College (which is proportional to a degree) or pure one person one vote democracy?  What would be your rationale for changing to a system that allots a state with less than a million people the same voting power as a state with over 20 million people?  That means people's votes in the more populates state weigh 5% of what the less populated state's votes weigh?  I don't see that as being fair or democractic, unless you are not interested in being democractic and just want to rig it so one side that has more states that turn a certain color wins every time, denying tens of millions of people their voice at the polls.

    2. claptona profile image80
      claptonaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Rock_nj,
      When did America become a democracy?
      Any high school student knows that the U.S. is not a democracy and never has been.
      It's a Republic of States - with the states giving permission for the Federal Government to rule.
      Might want to learn history about your country before demanding a one person vote when it was never intended to be that way in a Presidential election.
      I know they're talking about taking American history out of the curriculum, have they already done that?
      Is that why so many people think the U.S. is a democracy when it has always been a Republic.
      Can't pick and chose like feelings. The Constitution is set up for a Republic of States, NOT a democracy.
      Read a bit before getting your dander up.
      But, I suppose, like most people, facts won't change your opinion.
      Cheers

      1. Rock_nj profile image91
        Rock_njposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        I certainly understand that our system is set up as a federal republic, but at its roots the President obtains his or her power from the vote of the people in each state, i.e. democracy.  We are a democractic republic.  In states we actually do practice pure democracy, as Governors are elected by direct popular vote, as are laws that are passed by referendums.  In fact, US Senators and Representatives are elected by direct democratic voting by the people who are eligible to vote in their states or districts.  The only way it is done differently is at the Presidential level with an antiquated Electoral College that has twice denied the popular vote winner the Presidency.  I accept it as legal and just, since that's what our Constitution says, but it is also fine to question whether this system should be changed to better reflect the will of the people.

  16. JonPanama profile image59
    JonPanamaposted 9 months ago

    If the United States did not have the electoral college, then voting would be dominated by just a handful of states.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Not even that - just a handful of large cities.

      1. GA Anderson profile image84
        GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        hmm... That might be more like 11 states instead of a handful of cities. (based on a simple total population comparison. - I didn't dig enough to find the states by registered voters, but the comparison is probably still valid), and so is your point is still valid.

        I was surprised to discover it would take that many, but we all know numbers don't lie. <|:~)

        ps. It would take 12 states via the EC.

        GA

      2. Don W profile image82
        Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this
        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          And yet...when was the last time Southern Ca. (LA, San Diego) went one way and the state went the other?  How about Seattle + Spokane going one way and Washington the other?  Portland, Or and the state?  NYC and NY state? 

          If you look at how counties voted, it is pretty plain that these large cities are carrying the state.  So...a handful of carefully chosen large metropolitan areas will carry their respective states which in turn carries the entire election.

          1. Don W profile image82
            Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            The president would be determined by the national popular vote, so even if a candidate lost a state, all the votes would still count for something. Unlike the current winner-takes-all system, where if a candidate gets over 50% of the popular state vote, they get 100% of the electoral votes, which means the votes of 49.9% of the people in the state count for nothing.

            Also, the 10 biggest cities make up 7.9% of the vote. The 50 biggest cities make up 15%. Not enough to determine the election. And to get that 15%, every person in all of the 50 largest cities would have to vote for exactly the same person. When was the last time you heard a 100% of people in any city had voted for a single candidate, let alone 100% of people in 50 cities.

            Plus, if you look at the geographical distribution of campaign events in Ohio (most critical "swing" state in 2012 election) where all the votes counted for something, you'll see that candidates campaigned in rural and suburban areas, not just metropolitan areas. This is because the candidates needed votes from everywhere in the state to win, not just the cities. That distribution occurred in the other swing states too. The same would be true at national level if all votes counted for something, which currently they do not.

            As I said, the "big cities" objection is a myth.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              OK - I missed that the EC would be gone.  Too much time between posts and didn't re-read them. 

              But I do question votes that don't count for something - just because a vote lost in an election does not make it fail to count.  It's an easy stance to take, but doesn't really follow through very well.  If a losing vote counted (at national level) then it certainly counted at a state level.  And just as much.

              1. Don W profile image82
                Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                It doesn't makes sense that candidate X gets 100% of a state's electoral votes when only 50.1% of people in that state voted for them. That effectively means the wishes of 49.9% of people in the state are being ignored at national level. Those people will be affected by the policies of whoever wins the presidency too, so why should their wishes be ignored?

                Under the national popular vote compact, candidate X would still win the state with 50.1%, but the wishes of the other 49.9% of people would still count at national level. That makes more sense.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  And if we use popular vote and 50.1% vote D it means that the 49.9 that voted R is ignored.  "That effectively means the wishes of 49.9% of people in the state <nation> are being ignored at national level. Those people will be affected by the policies of whoever wins the presidency too, so why should their wishes be ignored?"

                  How is it different for that 49.9% if at the national level?  Either way their vote has lost, did not elect anyone and will be ignored.  Identical reasoning, yes?

                  The root of this "compact" is to change presidential voting to a popular vote.  I disagree with that concept, as a liberal who would benefit from it you like it and are trying to spin "ignored" votes into something they are not.  Doesn't work - the rationale of making small states' vote just a tiny bit more important remains as valid as it ever was.

                  1. Don W profile image82
                    Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    People votes are not ignored at national level if they're counted at national level. Currently they aren't. The vote should be about who should be president, not who your state gives its electoral votes to.

                    Yes the point of the compact is to ensure the popular vote determines who the president is, that's why it's called the National Popular Vote Compact. The rationale of making small states' votes more important is perfectly valid. All available evidence shows that is not happening. Most states are being ignored in favor of the 12 or so swing states. So why have a system that doesn't do what it was intended to do?

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this
  17. Virginia Allain profile image75
    Virginia Allainposted 9 months ago

    I was too polite to say all that. You have a way with words!

  18. cheaptrick profile image75
    cheaptrickposted 9 months ago

    Anyone else notice how political arguments and religious arguments have the same entrenched timbre,passion,and 'I'm right' attitude regardless of facts?...like the fact that in this election there was no one to vote for...

  19. ahorseback profile image41
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    But you don't think Obama - Clinton hates  everybody in mainstream America , ...........Uh huh !

 
working