Getting rid of the Electoral College

[moonflasher]

Wondering where in your upbringing you went so astray and became such an asshole. Or is this just performance art for anonymous playing on the Internet? Can't think of any other reason you would be so lost in being a sleazebag.

Not playing your sick game, though. Just stay around for the final act of all of this.

Seems to me you're both....You're a dildo and playing...….Waiting gramps.

 

[icanhelp1]

donald j trump foundation

Well, this could be the determining factor that force's Trump to turn over his returns for scrutiny. It's a fact of law that evidence procured by false pretence is inadmissible in a court of law, but we're not in a court of law, are we? We should fear, as american citizens, the use of the fisa court for a political agenda. We are all at risk. What happened to general Flynn is a temporary win. There are two more investigations which will be very revealing as to how underhanded the DOJ and the FBI conducted themselves. There are many more shoes to drop and all we can hope for is the truth and let the chip fall where they may.

 

[Dumpington]

This thread has somewhat gotten away from the topic of the Electoral College, hasn't it?

Here's the thing. The Democratic Party has gotten steadily weaker in recent years, and many in that party now blame the U.S. Constitution for what ails them, when in fact it's the Democrats' recent hard-left turn that's mostly responsible for their loss of support in the American heartland, and without any support in the heartland the Dems are doomed to be ONLY viable on the coasts (around New York & L.A.)

In 1972 the Democrats had also veered sharply to the left, nominating a radical lefty U.S. Senator from South Dakota to be their party's presidential candidate. And when it was all over, their guy had won a total of only 17 electoral votes to President Nixon's 520. George McGovern was 1972's version of Bernie Sanders (or Beto O'Rourke), and he ended up winning only 37.52% of the popular vote (to Nixon's 60.67!) It was, like, the 2nd biggest landslide-defeat of all time!

Right now, EVERY Democrat contender is trying to be the farthest to the left, along with claiming to hate President Trump the most. And because of that mindset, it's looking like 1972 all over again! Don't forget that Republican incumbent presidents tend to do MUCH BETTER the second time around. Ronald Reagan received 10,552,242 MORE popular votes in 1984 than he'd received in 1980. George W. got 11,577,160 MORE votes in '04 than he got in 2000. Democrats? Not so much. Barack received 3,580,921 FEWER votes in 2012 than he received in 2008. Just sayin...

 

[Boxlicker101]

How is it possible that hordes of illegals are committing felonies in broad daylight, surrounded by public officials, and nobody can name any of them?

Well, to name one, there is Francisco Sanchez, who killed a woman in San Francisco. He got away with it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This thread has somewhat gotten away from the topic of the Electoral College, hasn't it?

Here's the thing. The Democratic Party has gotten steadily weaker in recent years, and many in that party now blame the U.S. Constitution for what ails them, when in fact it's the Democrats' recent hard-left turn that's mostly responsible for their loss of support in the American heartland, and without any support in the heartland the Dems are doomed to be ONLY viable on the coasts (around New York & L.A.)

In 1972 the Democrats had also veered sharply to the left, nominating a radical lefty U.S. Senator from South Dakota to be their party's presidential candidate. And when it was all over, their guy had won a total of only 17 electoral votes to President Nixon's 520. George McGovern was 1972's version of Bernie Sanders (or Beto O'Rourke), and he ended up winning only 37.52% of the popular vote (to Nixon's 60.67!) It was, like, the 2nd biggest landslide-defeat of all time!


Right now, EVERY Democrat contender is trying to be the farthest to the left, along with claiming to hate President Trump the most. And because of that mindset, it's looking like 1972 all over again! Don't forget that Republican incumbent presidents tend to do MUCH BETTER the second time around. Ronald Reagan received 10,552,242 MORE popular votes in 1984 than he'd received in 1980. George W. got 11,577,160 MORE votes in '04 than he got in 2000. Democrats? Not so much. Barack received 3,580,921 FEWER votes in 2012 than he received in 2008. Just sayin...

You might include the fact that McGovern didn't even win in his home state.

 

[Dumpington]

Boxlicker101 writes: "You might include the fact that McGovern didn't even win in his home state."

This is true.

President Nixon won 54.15% of the South Dakota popular vote, compared with 45.52% for that state's own U.S. Senator, George McGovern.

The only state McGovern actually won was Massachusetts. He also carried the District of Columbia. It was a complete blow-out.

 

[phrodeau]

Well, to name one, there is Francisco Sanchez, who killed a woman in San Francisco. He got away with it.

But did he cast a vote? That’s the question here.

 

[JackLuis]

What If We Did Have a Popular Vote for President?

However, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is making an end run. It has proposed a process without a constitutional amendment to move to the individual vote count within the framework of the Electoral College. States will still determine how their own electoral votes are awarded, but state legislatures can pass measures dictating that their electors go to the winner of the national popular vote rather than the candidate who wins their state.

No, no, NO!
If any thing make the states apportion their Electors by the popular vote or who wins in the districts.

Allowing the States to ignore their voters choice is very chancy. Imagine if Alabama, Florida, or Mississippi, did this, how many redneck assholes would we have to put up with?

 

[YDB95]

This thread has somewhat gotten away from the topic of the Electoral College, hasn't it?

Here's the thing. The Democratic Party has gotten steadily weaker in recent years,

Which is why they've won the popular vote in five of the past six elections? (And that one exception was with a wartime incumbent, and even he barely won.)

and many in that party now blame the U.S. Constitution for what ails them, when in fact it's the Democrats' recent hard-left turn that's mostly responsible for their loss of support in the American heartland, and without any support in the heartland the Dems are doomed to be ONLY viable on the coasts (around New York & L.A.)

Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio have all gone blue at least once in the past three elections, and some of them did so in all three. If that's not "support in the heartland", what is?

In 1972 the Democrats had also veered sharply to the left, nominating a radical lefty U.S. Senator from South Dakota to be their party's presidential candidate. And when it was all over, their guy had won a total of only 17 electoral votes to President Nixon's 520. George McGovern was 1972's version of Bernie Sanders (or Beto O'Rourke), and he ended up winning only 37.52% of the popular vote (to Nixon's 60.67!) It was, like, the 2nd biggest landslide-defeat of all time!

That was 47 years ago, Dumpington. If you're going back that far, you might as well reach back to the 1st biggest, which was just eight years earlier and in which the Democrats won everything outside the deep south.

Right now, EVERY Democrat contender is trying to be the farthest to the left, along with claiming to hate President Trump the most. And because of that mindset, it's looking like 1972 all over again! Don't forget that Republican incumbent presidents tend to do MUCH BETTER the second time around. Ronald Reagan received 10,552,242 MORE popular votes in 1984 than he'd received in 1980. George W. got 11,577,160 MORE votes in '04 than he got in 2000. Democrats? Not so much. Barack received 3,580,921 FEWER votes in 2012 than he received in 2008. Just sayin...

And George Bush Senior got how many more votes the second time? Oh, wait a minute...
Well, Clinton's second election total plummeted to...whoops.

 

[icanhelp1]

donald j trump foundation

Getting rid of the electoral college is just more evidence of how subversive the Dems are and winning at all cost is their montra. The ends justify the means.
The other shoe to drop is coming. The next investigation from Mr. Horowitz is going all the way up to Obama. The DOJ's illegal use of the fisa court, not just once but hundreds of times, spying on american citizens. The fisa court itself is complicit by it's own failure to investigate internally several allegations of wrongdoing. The countless unmaskings and the leaks just before Obama left office to propagate and make certain a false narratives continued well after and lend credence for use of fisa court assets for spying. The use of strong arm tactics by the likes of Mr.Ohr, Lisa Page, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, litigating process crimes rather than substance and factual crimes. Having attorneys Weissman and Ahmad on the Mueller team knowing full well they are Clinton political hacks. The Clinton side of the story is coming and will expose the sheer arrogance of the democratic party and their behind the scenes subversive tactics to include conspiracy to affect an election, collusion with foreign governments and the falsification of documents to obtain fisa warrants. The FBI's handling of the Clinton investigation concerning the use of an unauthorized server, obstruction of justice and the deletion of thousands of emails after they were subpoenaed ( the attempt to delete before the subpoena failed and those documents were available for congress to review and were still delete, obstruction of justice in it's purest form ) all overlooked and conveniently swept under the rug and classified as a matter and not criminal investigation because of the absence of intent, BULLSHIT!!!! . The use of campaign funds to purchase the Steele dossier will come out eventually. It's coming to a theatre near you. The american people will see through how the house is using phony investigations into Trump's past to deflect attention from their own party's sins. There's a whole other side of this investigation which the compromised mainstream media ignores.

 

[YDB95]

Getting rid of the electoral college is just more evidence of how subversive the Dems are and winning at all cost is their montra.

I'll assume you mean "mantra" there. And if providing for the winner of the popular vote to win the freakin' election is "subversive," I plead guilty!


By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that many - perhaps even all - of the people who are taking the Republicans' side here are arguing that they're on the side of the great mythical Ordinary Average American, while meanwhile supporting a policy that lessens the likelihood of the will of the people actually carrying the day? Just wondering.

 

[icanhelp1]

I'll assume you mean "mantra" there. And if providing for the winner of the popular vote to win the freakin' election is "subversive," I plead guilty!


By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that many - perhaps even all - of the people who are taking the Republicans' side here are arguing that they're on the side of the great mythical Ordinary Average American, while meanwhile supporting a policy that lessens the likelihood of the will of the people actually carrying the day? Just wondering.

Thank you for the correction 'MANTRA' You lost by current law. What's subversive is what happened before and after the election. To use the law enforcement branch of our government to bring down this president is subversive. Win by all means. The change you want is reflective of being a sore looser. You did the same thing when Gore lost, whine and complain. You could have lost the populous vote and you would complain about not using the electoral college. You constantly try move the goal post for your benefit. The stock market is up, unemployment is the lowest in generations. The only claim to fame for you is the failed ACA. If the eradication of the electoral college is brought up for a vote, it will lose! It's not as popular as you think. There is a major crisis on our southern border and your party just look's the other way. It's all party politics with you people. The great mythical Ordinary Average American? What does that mean? The electoral college is LAW! not policy. You can't write an executive order to change it you have to legislate. Have fun with that. The house's frivolous investigations are going to cost you in 2020, not just the white house but the house of representatives. Clinton and her minions will be exposed.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'll assume you mean "mantra" there. And if providing for the winner of the popular vote to win the freakin' election is "subversive," I plead guilty!

So you want mob rule at the federal level....brilliant.

By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that many - perhaps even all - of the people who are taking the Republicans' side here are arguing that they're on the side of the great mythical Ordinary Average American, while meanwhile supporting a policy that lessens the likelihood of the will of the people actually carrying the day? Just wondering.

No.

Because it's not in conflict.

Pro EC in no way lessens the likelihood of the will of the people actually carrying the day.

That's all done at the state level.

 

[Dumpington]

JackLuis writes: "If any thing make the states apportion their Electors by the popular vote or who wins in the districts."

Maine & Nebraska already do this, Jack. For example, back in 2008, Barack Obama won the Nebraska congressional district that comprises the city of Omaha. So even though John McCain won 56.53% of that state's vote, Nebraska split it's electoral votes, 4-1 in McCain's favor.

Ditto for Maine in 2016. Hillary carried the state, narrowly winning the popular vote, but Trump easily won the second-congressional district, with Mrs. Clinton winning Maine's electoral vote by a 3-1 margin instead of winner-take-all.

If certain states (like Texas & Florida) adopted this system, it would benefit Democrat candidates, while if other states (California & New York) adopted this, it would greatly benefit Republicans! It's up to each state to decide on its own.

YDB95 writes: "Which is why they've won the popular vote in five of the past six elections?"

But with the American population increasing by about five-million people every year, how is it even possible for the Democratic Party's popular vote to be SHRINKING now in back-to-back presidential elections? WHERE have those millions of voters gone?

"Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio have all gone blue at least once in the past three elections, and some of them did so in all three. If that's not "support in the heartland", what is?"

Republican presidential candidates have carried ALL FIFTY STATES at least once in the past fifty years. But there are SEVERAL states in the American heartland (Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alaska) that haven't ONCE been won by a Democrat running for president in that same period - and it's only getting worse! I doubt if ANY Democrat will ever win in those states again!

"And George Bush Senior got how many more votes the second time? Oh, wait a minute..."

In the past half-century (fifty years), only THREE U.S. presidents running for re-election have won FEWER popular votes the second time around: Jimmy Carter in 1980... George H.W. Bush in 1992... and Barack Obama in 2012. And let's not forget that Carter & Bush both LOST - but in fairness to those two, both were opposed by unusually strong third-party challengers (John Anderson in '80 & Ross Perot in '92) who siphoned-off support. But Barack Obama had NO serious third-party challenger in 2012! He nevertheless finished with over three-&-a-half million FEWER VOTES!

WHERE did they go, YDB95? What happened to all of those Obama voters?

 

[JackLuis]

JackLuis writes: "If any thing make the states apportion their Electors by the popular vote or who wins in the districts."

Maine & Nebraska already do this, Jack. For example, back in 2008, Barack Obama won the Nebraska congressional district that comprises the city of Omaha. So even though John McCain won 56.53% of that state's vote, Nebraska split it's electoral votes, 4-1 in McCain's favor.
-

WHERE did they go, YDB95? What happened to all of those Obama voters?

Yes I know that TWO states apportion their EC, however that is 2/50 of the states. Hardly universal.

As for the 2012 election, lots of folks did not bother to vote, same as in 2016 when the electorate was disgusted with both candidates.

If you had to have voted to get a drivers licence we might have a few more people motivated to vote, especially in poor public transportation states.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Which is why they've won the popular vote in five of the past six elections?"

But with the American population increasing by about five-million people every year, how is it even possible for the Democratic Party's popular vote to be SHRINKING now in back-to-back presidential elections? WHERE have those millions of voters gone?

Some voted Republican next time around, far too many didn't vote at all, but that still isn't evidence of voter fraud in any way. Not all voters are as partisan as you and I are. It's that simple.

Besides, the point is, you said the Dems have been losing ground. Which doesn't square at all with the fact that they've won the popular vote in five of the past six elections.

"Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio have all gone blue at least once in the past three elections, and some of them did so in all three. If that's not "support in the heartland", what is?"

Republican presidential candidates have carried ALL FIFTY STATES at least once in the past fifty years.

Close, but wrong.

But there are SEVERAL states in the American heartland (Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alaska) that haven't ONCE been won by a Democrat running for president in that same period - and it's only getting worse! I doubt if ANY Democrat will ever win in those states again!

Several yes, all no. And when do you think will be the next time the Republicans win California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois...you get the idea.

"And George Bush Senior got how many more votes the second time? Oh, wait a minute..."

In the past half-century (fifty years), only THREE U.S. presidents running for re-election have won FEWER popular votes the second time around: Jimmy Carter in 1980... George H.W. Bush in 1992... and Barack Obama in 2012. And let's not forget that Carter & Bush both LOST - but in fairness to those two, both were opposed by unusually strong third-party challengers (John Anderson in '80 & Ross Perot in '92) who siphoned-off support. But Barack Obama had NO serious third-party challenger in 2012! He nevertheless finished with over three-&-a-half million FEWER VOTES!

WHERE did they go, YDB95? What happened to all of those Obama voters?

See my first comment above. But that has nothing to do with what might or might not happen in the next election. Different candidates, different issues, different outcomes.

 

[Dumpington]

JackLuis writes: "Yes I know that TWO states apportion their EC, however that is 2/50 of the states. Hardly universal."

Technically speaking, Jack, there are an additional seven states with only three electoral votes each that could be argued also apportion their electoral votes by congressional district (e.g. Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Deleware, & Alaska), bringing the overall total of states doing this to a respectable NINE!

YDB95 writes: "...you said the Dems have been losing ground. Which doesn't square at all with the fact that they've won the popular vote in five of the past six elections."

I only said that Democratic Party presidential candidates have received fewer popular votes now in two consecutive elections - which is true - but as we both know, it's only the Electoral College that really matters when electing a president, and the Dems have ALSO received fewer of those now in those same consecutive elections, dropping from 365 in '08... to 332 in '12... down to 227 in '16.

"Close, but wrong."

I repeat, in the past fifty-years, EACH of the fifty states in the U.S. has voted for a Republican president at least once, while NINE states in that same 50-year period have NOT once given their electoral votes to a Democrat - I'm NOT wrong!

"And when do you think will be the next time the Republicans win California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois...you get the idea."

Okay, if the Democrats in California continue registering Mexican nationals to vote in their state, it may remain blue for some time to come. Massachusetts voted TWICE for Ronald Reagan. And outside of Chicago, Illinois is already red.

"Different candidates, different issues, different outcomes."

You have just now explained how California, Massachusetts, New York, & Illinois could turn red a whole lot sooner than either one of us expects!

 

[icanhelp1]

donald j trump foundation

I'm not disputed what's going on in New York.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "...you said the Dems have been losing ground. Which doesn't square at all with the fact that they've won the popular vote in five of the past six elections."

I only said that Democratic Party presidential candidates have received fewer popular votes now in two consecutive elections - which is true - but as we both know, it's only the Electoral College that really matters when electing a president, and the Dems have ALSO received fewer of those now in those same consecutive elections, dropping from 365 in '08... to 332 in '12... down to 227 in '16.

Which has nothing to do with how many EVs they might get next time.

"Close, but wrong."

I repeat, in the past fifty-years, EACH of the fifty states in the U.S. has voted for a Republican president at least once, while NINE states in that same 50-year period have NOT once given their electoral votes to a Democrat - I'm NOT wrong!

Okay, yes. I thought you meant in one election. But if you're going to go back 50 years, you might as well go back 55 years, a time frame in which all states have gone blue at least once. But that just goes to show why abolishing the electoral college would be good for those states: it's the only way voters there are ever going to get any attention. As it stands now, there's no reason whatsoever for either party's candidate to pay any mind to voters in, say, Kansas (or at the other end of the spectrum, Rhode Island) because everyone knows which way those particular electoral votes are going to go barring a political tsunami. If we switch to the popular vote, then Democrats in the red states and Republicans in the blue states - and there are millions of both - will be getting the candidates' attention for a change. I see no reason to consider that anything but a very positive change.

"And when do you think will be the next time the Republicans win California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois...you get the idea."

Okay, if the Democrats in California continue registering Mexican nationals to vote in their state, it may remain blue for some time to come.

Since you ignored my question last time, I'll ask again: if you think the Dems are stuffing the rolls with illegal voters, why would they do it in a state where they're already prohibitive favorites?

Massachusetts voted TWICE for Ronald Reagan.

Yes, 35 years ago. Which has absolutely nothing to do with how it votes now.

And outside of Chicago, Illinois is already red.

And outside of Provo and the rural counties, Utah is already blue. So what?

"Different candidates, different issues, different outcomes."
You have just now explained how California, Massachusetts, New York, & Illinois could turn red a whole lot sooner than either one of us expects!

And vice versa.

 

[icanhelp1]

JackLuis writes: "Yes I know that TWO states apportion their EC, however that is 2/50 of the states. Hardly universal."

Technically speaking, Jack, there are an additional seven states with only three electoral votes each that could be argued also apportion their electoral votes by congressional district (e.g. Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Deleware, & Alaska), bringing the overall total of states doing this to a respectable NINE!

The portioning of electoral votes such as ME & NE, could change the total landscape of the electoral college. Both parties are flirting with the idea. I think blue states like MA, CA, NY won't be affected but could change drastically in other states like FL,OH, PA,TX semi quasi flip states, combine that with redistricting based on party strength in each state would leave the electoral college as a somewhat hybrid of the original version. I would bet that in today's political climate the electorate is as skittish as ever and perhaps many make their minds up as they enter the ballot box which has made forecasting nearly impossible. That, I think, could affect how campaign finances are spent and also impact the outcome. I think all the facts and figures you all have shared are not reliable predictors of up coming elections. Most major newscast are consistently getting it wrong. I wonder how inaccurate census taking affects the whole Gerrymandering and redistricting. I also wonder how the exodus of people and businesses from high tax states will effect the college in the future. I guess if we go to a populous vote it won't matter.

YDB95 writes: "...you said the Dems have been losing ground. Which doesn't square at all with the fact that they've won the popular vote in five of the past six elections."

I only said that Democratic Party presidential candidates have received fewer popular votes now in two consecutive elections - which is true - but as we both know, it's only the Electoral College that really matters when electing a president, and the Dems have ALSO received fewer of those now in those same consecutive elections, dropping from 365 in '08... to 332 in '12... down to 227 in '16.

"Close, but wrong."

I repeat, in the past fifty-years, EACH of the fifty states in the U.S. has voted for a Republican president at least once, while NINE states in that same 50-year period have NOT once given their electoral votes to a Democrat - I'm NOT wrong!

"And when do you think will be the next time the Republicans win California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois...you get the idea."

Okay, if the Democrats in California continue registering Mexican nationals to vote in their state, it may remain blue for some time to come. Massachusetts voted TWICE for Ronald Reagan. And outside of Chicago, Illinois is already red.

"Different candidates, different issues, different outcomes."

You have just now explained how California, Massachusetts, New York, & Illinois could turn red a whole lot sooner than either one of us expects!

The portioning of electoral votes such as ME & NE, could change the total landscape of the electoral college. Both parties are flirting with the idea. I think blue states like MA, CA, NY won't be affected but could change drastically in other states like FL,OH, PA,TX semi quasi flip states, combine that with redistricting based on party strength in each state would leave the electoral college as a somewhat hybrid of the original version. I would bet that in today's political climate the electorate is as skittish as ever and perhaps many make their minds up as they enter the ballot box which has made forecasting nearly impossible. That, I think, could affect how campaign finances are spent and also impact the outcome. I think all the facts and figures you all have shared are not reliable predictors of up coming elections. Most major newscast are consistently getting it wrong. I wonder how inaccurate census taking affects the whole Gerrymandering and redistricting. I also wonder how the exodus of people and businesses from high tax states will effect the college in the future. I guess if we go to a populous vote it won't matter.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Which has nothing to do with how many EVs they might get next time."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that whomever wins the 2020 Democratic Party's presidential nomination does even WORSE in the electoral college than Mrs. Clinton did in 2016. The Dems are NOT going to run a strong candidate against Trump (as they don't have any), and will very likely be a deeply divided party for some time to come, with the tax-&-spend libs losing more ground to the neo-Socialists!

"But if you're going to go back 50 years, you might as well go back 55 years"

You're going to include LBJ in your list just so that you can FINALLY dredge-up a Democrat presidential landslide? Of course, that 1964 election also took place less than a year after the assassination of JFK, so Republican Barry Goldwater never really stood a chance. You DO realize, of course, that Lyndon's own party DEEPLY HATED him by 1968, when he accepted the fact that he might not even win re-nomination, and so he dropped-out entirely! And by 1972 they completely IGNORED him at his own party's convention that nominated far-left Senator George McGovern!

"if you think the Dems are stuffing the rolls with illegal voters, why would they do it in a state where they're already prohibitive favorites?"

Isn't it obvious? The Democratic Party runs California, controlling both the Governor's office & the state legislature! They've passed laws in that state allowing illegals to acquire drivers' licenses, and they then passed other laws allowing anybody with a drivers' license to vote on election day without registering first! And then they opened up their state's treasury to give illegals food stamps, housing, free health care, and even free educations in their university system, and all they ask in return is their VOTES! Which also explains why California allows for illegal Sanctuary Cities to exist in their state, while opposing any legislation (e.g. voter-photo-ID laws) that might make Mexican nationals feel uncomfortable about illegally participating in American democracy!

The Democratic Party would LOVE to do all of this in Texas, as well, but that state remains in Republican hands, which makes it far more difficult for the Democratic Party to harness the political support of those people who are in that state illegally! In fact, it is for this very reason that so many California businesses have re-located to the Lone Star State in recent years, as they move to escape the increasingly higher taxes that California must impose upon businesses & individuals so that they can continue distributing more taxpayer-funded freebies to illegals!

"Yes, 35 years ago. Which has absolutely nothing to do with how it votes now."

Less than a year after Barack Obama's inauguration as president, the BLUE state of Massachusetts held a special U.S. Senate election for the seat vacated by "the Lion of the Senate," Edward Kennedy, who had passed away in August of 2009, and President Obama even flew Air Force One up to Boston to campaign for his party's heavily-favored candidate, Martha Coakley. This wasn't like Doug Jones in Alabama, where the media was daily trashing his opponent. No, Martha Coakley had the media's full support, along with that of the still-popular first-ever black president. But the Democrats LOST, and Republican Scott Brown was elected instead. Yes, you can blame it all on the enormous unpopularity of ObamaCare if you so choose, but it happened!

"And outside of Provo and the rural counties, Utah is already blue. So what?

Now you're just being silly. NOWHERE is Utah BLUE, YDB95!

There are 29-counties in that state. Hillary won TWO of them in 2016 (winning a paltry 27.17% of Utah's popular vote!) Going back four-years earlier, in 2012, Barack Obama won ZERO counties in Utah (along with 24.67% of that state's popular vote!) In '08, Barack carried three Utah counties (and a hefty 34.17% of the popular vote!) NOWHERE can Utah be considered a Democratic Party state!

 

[Dumpington]

Now about that BLUE STATE of Illinois...

Hillary Clinton was BORN in Illinois - it's her HOME STATE - and in 2016 she won 55.24% of the popular vote there, with Donald Trump receiving only 38.36%, putting Illinois' 20 electoral votes in the Clinton column!

The state of Illinois is made up of 102 counties. Mrs. Clinton won in TWELVE of those counties, with New Yorker Donald Trump winning the majority of votes in the remaining NINETY counties. Chicago's notoriously corrupt Cook County alone gave the former First Lady a solid majority of 1,158,659 votes in her favor. Subtract Cook County, and Trump carries the state of Illinois by 213,945 votes!

And, while we're looking at what those huge cities can do to a state's electoral votes, let's check-out liberal New York state, where Hillary served as a U.S. Senator! There are 62 counties in New York state. Mrs. Clinton won in SEVENTEEN of them, with Trump winning the majority of votes in the remaining forty-five. Hillary carried that state by a margin of 1,736,585 votes, but if you subtract those five counties representing New York City - Manhattan, Kings, Queens, the Bronx, & Westchester counties - Donald Trump suddenly has a 102,523 vote majority in New York state, winning that state's 29 electoral votes!

 

[icanhelp1]

Now about that BLUE STATE of Illinois...

Hillary Clinton was BORN in Illinois - it's her HOME STATE - and in 2016 she won 55.24% of the popular vote there, with Donald Trump receiving only 38.36%, putting Illinois' 20 electoral votes in the Clinton column!

The state of Illinois is made up of 102 counties. Mrs. Clinton won in TWELVE of those counties, with New Yorker Donald Trump winning the majority of votes in the remaining NINETY counties. Chicago's notoriously corrupt Cook County alone gave the former First Lady a solid majority of 1,158,659 votes in her favor. Subtract Cook County, and Trump carries the state of Illinois by 213,945 votes!

And, while we're looking at what those huge cities can do to a state's electoral votes, let's check-out liberal New York state, where Hillary served as a U.S. Senator! There are 62 counties in New York state. Mrs. Clinton won in SEVENTEEN of them, with Trump winning the majority of votes in the remaining forty-five. Hillary carried that state by a margin of 1,736,585 votes, but if you subtract those five counties representing New York City - Manhattan, Kings, Queens, the Bronx, & Westchester counties - Donald Trump suddenly has a 102,523 vote majority in New York state, winning that state's 29 electoral votes!

I'm from MA and I don't see our state turning red any time soon even with it's current debt levels.

 

[Dumpington]

icanhelp1 writes: "I'm from MA and I don't see our state turning red any time soon even with it's current debt levels."

No, probably not.

Your state of Massachusetts consists of fourteen counties, and in 2016 Mrs. Clinton won ALL fourteen. Ditto for Barack Obama in both 2008 & 2012. In fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win any counties in the Bay State was Bush-41, who (interestingly enough) easily defeated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis nationwide in 1988. Bush carried Worcester, Plymouth, & Barnstable counties in Massachusetts in that election.

Meanwhile, another BLUE STATE that's mostly RED outside of the big cities is Washington state in the Pacific northwest, where in 2016 Hillary came away with that state's 12 electoral votes (except that she actually received only EIGHT, as four of her electors ended-up ignoring her and instead voted for other people!) In any event, Mrs. Clinton won TWELVE of Washington's 39 counties, with Trump winning the remaining twenty-seven. But if you subtract her 558,955 majority from Seattle's King & Snohomish Counties, Trump carries the rest of the state by 37,984 votes!

Ditto for Oregon, where Mrs. Clinton defeated Trump by 219,703 votes, despite her winning only EIGHT of that state's 36-counties! If you just subtract Portland's Multnomah County, Trump carries the remainder of that state by 4,904 votes!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes I know that TWO states apportion their EC, however that is 2/50 of the states. Hardly universal.

As for the 2012 election, lots of folks did not bother to vote, same as in 2016 when the electorate was disgusted with both candidates.

If you had to have voted to get a drivers licence we might have a few more people motivated to vote, especially in poor public transportation states.

So much authoritarianism.

If people don't want to vote they shouldn't have to and jack booted authoritarian types like yourself shouldn't be able to penalize them for it.


Sorry you missed your chance to be part of the Soviet Utopia comrade