Electoral vs popular vote

[Justin-case]

Ah you damn "snow flakes", quit your belly aching, your fat pig lost. She knew the rules going in. You tards should have considered having the rules changed before that "tub of lard" got started if you knew she was going to suck shit so bad.

These countries are so much better than us

 

[Big_Lou]

I'm reading through his quotes now. You'll never guess, but he's a climate denier,lol.

Speaking of the curious cuck, did he get turtled/axed the other night?

 

[Justin-case]

View attachment 3836135

Speaking of the curious cuck, did he get turtled/axed the other night?

Haven't seen him since

 

[spandy]

Electoral College is a retarded system.

More people voted for Hillary but we got Trump.

Electoral protects from mob rule, derp.

The left was about this pissed off when the right took their slaves away. Cry cry cry.

 

[Big_Lou]

Electoral protects from mob rule, derp.

The left was about this pissed off when the right took their slaves away. Cry cry cry.

Uh-ohhhhh, looks like there's a SPANDY lurking around out by the water silo, and he looks strung out.....I'll take care of it....

 

[Justin-case]

Uh-ohhhhh, looks like there's a SPANDY lurking around out by the water silo, and he looks strung out.....I'll take care of it....

View attachment 3836297

Thank you, that was close ....
what would do without you?

 

[UncleBuck]

Electoral protects from mob rule, derp.

The left was about this pissed off when the right took their slaves away. Cry cry cry.

holy revisionist history!

the guy who thinks "multiculturalism works best when an ocean separates each culture" is accusing other people of being racist!

 

[UncleBuck]

guess who would have won if electoral votes were proportionally allocated, instead of winner take all?

 

[UncleBuck]

proportional allocation, rather than winner take all, would be the most equitable way to vote, besides the popular vote (which i am not for).

it would also be good if we could have electors per state reflect the actual population of each state.

if every vote in every state had the chance of tipping even one single elector, there would be no reason for people in idaho and california not to vote because they knew how their state was going. no matter how a state was going, their vote might just tip that one point.

give each state 1 EV per 100,000 residents. then wyoming is worth 6 EVs, and california is worth 388. it would take 1595 to win, instead of 270. the rural counties would have just as much say as the metropolitan counties, a single city like portland could not exert total control over a state like oregon, which happens currently.

might even force the candidates into focusing on more states, instead of just 7-9 key swing states.

 

[ThickStemz]

guess who would have won if electoral votes were proportionally allocated, instead of winner take all?

View attachment 3845974
View attachment 3845973
View attachment 3845972
View attachment 3845975

Dumbass.

The per the constitution if the electoral college were to be altered without amendment then 2 votes would go to the winner of the state. Then the remainder could be proportionally allocated.

I laugh when I hear the left bellyache over the EC, considering they have an advantage in it. All those tiny North eastern states should be one or two states. North of Virginia. Pennsylvania is a proper state. But Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode fucking Island?

The left gets all those Senate counts.

 

[UncleBuck]

The per the constitution if the electoral college were to be altered without amendment then 2 votes would go to the winner of the state.

the per the constitution?

speak english, boy.

All those tiny North eastern states should be one or two states. North of Virginia. Pennsylvania is a proper state. But Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode fucking Island?

The left gets all those Senate counts.

more people live there, moron.

if you want to appoint senators by population, then the red states would be fucked to death. the redtard states get two for wyoming, which has nearly no contribution to our GDP, which is just as many as california gets. and california carries us in terms of population and GDP.

you should be thankful for that, boy.

 

[ThickStemz]

the per the constitution?

speak english, boy.



more people live there, moron.

if you want to appoint senators by population, then the red states would be fucked to death. the redtard states get two for wyoming, which has nearly no contribution to our GDP, which is just as many as california gets. and california carries us in terms of population and GDP.

you should be thankful for that, boy.

The Senate isn't for the people. That is why I said we could not use their votes in making the EC proportional. They would have to be winner take all.

You don't talk like you understand the EC. There is a reason Wyoming has 3 votes. It gets one vote based on population. The state gets 2 senators and 2 votes in the EC. Not a coincidence.

 

[UncleBuck]

The Senate isn't for the people. That is why I said we could not use their votes in making the EC proportional. They would have to be winner take all.

You don't talk like you understand the EC. There is a reason Wyoming has 3 votes. It gets one vote based on population. The state gets 2 senators and 2 votes in the EC. Not a coincidence.

do you not understand what "if" means, boy?

 

[ThickStemz]

do you not understand what "if" means, boy?

You're talking about undoing "The Great Compromise" just to have a better shot at winning an election?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

You're talking about undoing "The Great Compromise" just to have a better shot at winning an election?

Do customers know you don't wash your hands before making those minimum wage suck ass hoagies?

Have you ever had a fact based opinion?

of course not.

 

[MisterBouncyBounce]

proportional allocation, rather than winner take all, would be the most equitable way to vote, besides the popular vote (which i am not for).

it would also be good if we could have electors per state reflect the actual population of each state.

if every vote in every state had the chance of tipping even one single elector, there would be no reason for people in idaho and california not to vote because they knew how their state was going. no matter how a state was going, their vote might just tip that one point.

give each state 1 EV per 100,000 residents. then wyoming is worth 6 EVs, and california is worth 388. it would take 1595 to win, instead of 270. the rural counties would have just as much say as the metropolitan counties, a single city like portland could not exert total control over a state like oregon, which happens currently.

might even force the candidates into focusing on more states, instead of just 7-9 key swing states.

i haven't done the math but some formula like that makes sense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

just to add my 2 cents on the EC.

some people have asked "what difference does it make where a person lives?".

well it wouldn't make a difference if there were no states, but that's not the way our government was formed from the start.

for whatever reasons, some i can imagine but i've actually never heard why, we formed "states" that were/are united by a federation.

so on paper each state is actually a country that is a member of a union (socialism anyone?).

that's why there is such a thing as "state's rights".

so makes sense that each member state of the federation has some weight in the rule making. otherwise why be a member?

like in the European Union Ireland shouldn't have to live by rules France makes just because France has more people, if things were left to just a popular vote, France would be ruling Ireland, so why would Ireland want to join or remain in such a union?

same with the states. we could go with just the popular vote if you abolish "States" and make the country just America and not the United States.

something like Uncle Buck suggests makes sense because it preserves State's rights.