Getting rid of the Electoral College

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "According to your fevered imagination and absolutely nothing else. You say that again and again and again, and your only "evidence" is a voting trend in California that's easily explained by something not at all illegal: even Republicans there were disgusted by Trump."

My "fevered imagination" has nothing to do with it.

Hillary Clinton finished with 65,000 fewer votes nationwide than President Obama received in 2012 - but she got nearly 900-thousand MORE votes than Obama in the state of California? HOW is that possible?

Asked and answered. Repeatedly.

"Improving services by...electing the party that supports cutting all public services to the bone except for defense."

Cutting off "all public services?" You're just making stuff up again.

No, you are - or rather, you misquoted me. Look at my original comment again.

"And which has a track record of obstructing black voters in the South with "almost surgical precision" (that's not some partisan hack talking, it's the US Court of Appeals). Yeah, that'll make it a LOT easier for elderly African Americans to get an ID."

So... elderly WHITE people can get photo-ID's with no problem, but you believe that elderly BLACK people lack the intelligence to do so? Again, that's "the soft bigotry of low expectations" once again rearing its ugly head.

No, it's the legacy of Jim Crow once again rearing its ugly head. And even if you were right about the Democrats being in bed with the Klan, that still wouldn't change the FACT that elderly blacks are far less likely than whites of the same generation to have the documentation needed to get a photo ID.

Seriously, YDB95 - you need to brush up on your American history some before insisting that there's NEVER been any election fraud in this nation.

I have a degree in history, and I never said there's never been any election fraud in this nation. What I did say was the type of fraud you keep implying is widespread is, in reality, extremely rare. And I think deep down you know it, which is why you won't shut up about the margins in California and won't produce a shred of real evidence.

You can start with the 1948 Democratic Party U.S. Senate run-off in the state of Texas, which put LBJ in the U.S. Senate!

Which voter ID laws wouldn't have stopped, because the corruption wasn't among voters.

And then jump ahead to Chicago's Cook County in 1960, that put JFK in the White House!

Nope. You who are always spouting election results with no context should know better: JFK defeated Nixon 303 electoral votes to 219, so Illinois' 27 electoral votes still wouldn't have put Nixon over the top. Besides, the Republicans were pulling the same dirty tricks in downstate IL.

You are aware, I hope, the party with a track record of obstructing black voters in the south is the Democratic Party.

Six decades ago yes, but I'm talking about today. I've seen enough of your posts on here to know you've bent over backwards to remain ignorant about it, but it's the Republicans who've been playing dogwhistle politics since 1968, who engineered that North Carolina case I referred to above, who post flyers in black neighborhoods implying that you can go to jail just for showing up at the wrong precinct, or that Republicans are instructed to vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday, etc.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Asked and answered. Repeatedly."

Ducked repeatedly, you mean. Once again, Barack Obama got 65,000 MORE popular votes nationwide in 2012 than Mrs. Clinton received in 2016... but in California she kicks Obama's butt by 900-thousand votes? Did she CHEAT? Or is Barack simply THAT unpopular on the west coast?

http://www.uselectionatlas.org

"No, it's the legacy of Jim Crow once again rearing its ugly head."

Jim Crow Laws are a legacy of those hundred years when the Democratic Party dominated the American south following the U.S. Civil War. Just because Alabama elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate does NOT mean that the Democrats are returning to power in the south. Trust me, Doug Jones will be soundly defeated in 2020.

"I have a degree in history, and I never said there's never been any election fraud in this nation."

And the best weapon we can utilize to PREVENT future election fraud are voter photo-ID laws, pure & simple!

"JFK defeated Nixon 303 electoral votes to 219, so Illinois' 27 electoral votes still wouldn't have put Nixon over the top. Besides, the Republicans were pulling the same dirty tricks in downstate IL."

Don't go seriously comparing downstate Illinois with Cook County! Chicago is (and has always been) notoriously corrupt! So are those counties in south Texas that gave LBJ his 1948 Democratic Party U.S. Senate primary run-off win, and those Democratic Party-run counties in Florida with the butterfly ballots where they unsuccessfully attempted to steal the 2000 presidential election for Al Gore!

EVERY corrupt county & precinct in the United States is a Democratic Party stronghold! Just as pretty-much every HIGH-CRIME precinct in the U.S. is dominated by Democrats. They are the party of corruption in America today!

"I've seen enough of your posts on here to know you've bent over backwards to remain ignorant about it, but it's the Republicans who've been playing dogwhistle politics since 1968, who engineered that North Carolina case I referred to above, who post flyers in black neighborhoods implying that you can go to jail just for showing up at the wrong precinct, or that Republicans are instructed to vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday, etc."

Yes, I'm sure there have been some Republicans trying to play dirty tricks at election time, but once again you're attempting to portray black voters as TOO STUPID to know where and when to vote! It's "the soft bigotry of low expectations" all over again! Black people KNOW how to vote, they know WHEN to vote, and they certainly know how to acquire a VALID PHOTO-ID!

 

[Boxlicker101]

YDB95 writes: "Asked and answered. Repeatedly."

Ducked repeatedly, you mean. Once again, Barack Obama got 65,000 MORE popular votes nationwide in 2012 than Mrs. Clinton received in 2016... but in California she kicks Obama's butt by 900-thousand votes? Did she CHEAT? Or is Barack simply THAT unpopular on the west coast?

http://www.uselectionatlas.org

"No, it's the legacy of Jim Crow once again rearing its ugly head."

Jim Crow Laws are a legacy of those hundred years when the Democratic Party dominated the American south following the U.S. Civil War. Just because Alabama elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate does NOT mean that the Democrats are returning to power in the south. Trust me, Doug Jones will be soundly defeated in 2020.

"I have a degree in history, and I never said there's never been any election fraud in this nation."

And the best weapon we can utilize to PREVENT future election fraud are voter photo-ID laws, pure & simple!

JFK defeated Nixon 303 electoral votes to 219, so Illinois' 27 electoral votes still wouldn't have put Nixon over the top. Besides, the Republicans were pulling the same dirty tricks in downstate IL.

Don't go seriously comparing downstate Illinois with Cook County! Chicago is (and has always been) notoriously corrupt! So are those counties in south Texas that gave LBJ his 1948 Democratic Party U.S. Senate primary run-off win, and those Democratic Party-run counties in Florida with the butterfly ballots where they unsuccessfully attempted to steal the 2000 presidential election for Al Gore!

EVERY corrupt county & precinct in the United States is a Democratic Party stronghold! Just as pretty-much every HIGH-CRIME precinct in the U.S. is dominated by Democrats. They are the party of corruption in America today!

"I've seen enough of your posts on here to know you've bent over backwards to remain ignorant about it, but it's the Republicans who've been playing dogwhistle politics since 1968, who engineered that North Carolina case I referred to above, who post flyers in black neighborhoods implying that you can go to jail just for showing up at the wrong precinct, or that Republicans are instructed to vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday, etc."

Yes, I'm sure there have been some Republicans trying to play dirty tricks at election time, but once again you're attempting to portray black voters as TOO STUPID to know where and when to vote! It's "the soft bigotry of low expectations" all over again! Black people KNOW how to vote, they know WHEN to vote, and they certainly know how to acquire a VALID PHOTO-ID!

This was closer than it sounds; I don't know who actually had the most votes in IL. In Chicago, when an election is stolen, it stays stolen. However, 269 electoral votes were needed to win the presidency. If the 27 IL electoral votes had gone to Nixon rather than JFK, the latter would have had 276 votes, and the former would have had 246. There were 15 unpledged electors, who met and decided to support Harry Byrd. They also wanted to persuade at least eight of the Southerners who were pledged to JFK, who was a Catholic, to join them. The KKK was still strong in the South, and they might have been able to do it.

This would have meant no candidate would have had a majority of the electoral vote, and it would have been decided in the House of Representatives. The Byrd mavericks hoped to get concessions there from the major parties, largely to continue segregation, in exchange for their support.

The scheme failed when Nixon, acting as a statesman rather than a politician, told his supporters not to pursue the IL vote. The mavericks, who might have persuaded eight electors, but could not have done so with 35, had to accept the tainted results. Nixon never got the approval he probably deserved for his sacrifice in thwarting the Democrat/KKK/Jim Crow plot.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Asked and answered. Repeatedly."

Ducked repeatedly, you mean. Once again, Barack Obama got 65,000 MORE popular votes nationwide in 2012 than Mrs. Clinton received in 2016... but in California she kicks Obama's butt by 900-thousand votes? Did she CHEAT? Or is Barack simply THAT unpopular on the west coast?

http://www.uselectionatlas.org

First of all, California had more voters in 2016 than in 2012. From 2010 to 2015 it gained approximately 2 million voters; it's probably safe to assume a similar rate from 2012 to 2016. But more importantly - and as I've already explained a number of times - Clinton ran far better than Democrats do in a lot of suburban districts that usually vote Republican. Since California probably has the most suburban voters of any state, that's reflected in the total. In Orange County alone, she ran almost a hundred thousand votes ahead of Obama while Trump got 75,000 fewer votes than Romney had in 2012. That had nothing to do with Obma's popularity and everything with Trump's unpopularity among that particular demographic. (It did happen elsewhere, even in red states like Texas and Georgia - she lost, but also ran far ahead of Obama in the suburbs of Atlanta and Houston.)

"No, it's the legacy of Jim Crow once again rearing its ugly head."

Jim Crow Laws are a legacy of those hundred years when the Democratic Party dominated the American south following the U.S. Civil War. Just because Alabama elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate does NOT mean that the Democrats are returning to power in the south. Trust me, Doug Jones will be soundly defeated in 2020.

There's a good chance of that - but it'll have more to do with what he's done against the Klan than for it.

"I have a degree in history, and I never said there's never been any election fraud in this nation."

And the best weapon we can utilize to PREVENT future election fraud are voter photo-ID laws, pure & simple!

And your only evidence of that is...well, really, you don't have any whatsoever.

"JFK defeated Nixon 303 electoral votes to 219, so Illinois' 27 electoral votes still wouldn't have put Nixon over the top. Besides, the Republicans were pulling the same dirty tricks in downstate IL."

Don't go seriously comparing downstate Illinois with Cook County! Chicago is (and has always been) notoriously corrupt! So are those counties in south Texas that gave LBJ his 1948 Democratic Party U.S. Senate primary run-off win, and those Democratic Party-run counties in Florida with the butterfly ballots where they unsuccessfully attempted to steal the 2000 presidential election for Al Gore!

Any book about the 1960 election will set you straight on that one. And as for the butterfly ballots in Florida, they were massively beneficial to Bush (but perhaps not as beneficial as his brother engineering the removal of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls for such "crimes" as having the same name as an unrelated felon).

Yes, I'm sure there have been some Republicans trying to play dirty tricks at election time, but once again you're attempting to portray black voters as TOO STUPID to know where and when to vote! It's "the soft bigotry of low expectations" all over again! Black people KNOW how to vote, they know WHEN to vote, and they certainly know how to acquire a VALID PHOTO-ID!

Not the point. Not even close. Besides, if you really believed that, you would support making it easier for eligible voters to vote, not throwing up barriers designed specifically for Democratic-leaning constituencies.

This would have meant no candidate would have had a majority of the electoral vote, and it would have been decided in the House of Representatives. The Byrd mavericks hoped to get concessions there from the major parties, largely to continue segregation, in exchange for their support.

The previous elections, in 1958, had been a Democratic landslide of epic proportions, so the Dems might well have been able to elect Kennedy in the House without any concessions to the segregationists.

The scheme failed when Nixon, acting as a statesman rather than a politician, told his supporters not to pursue the IL vote. The mavericks, who might have persuaded eight electors, but could not have done so with 35, had to accept the tainted results. Nixon never got the approval he probably deserved for his sacrifice in thwarting the Democrat/KKK/Jim Crow plot.

"Democrat/KKK/Jim Crow plot" by a Catholic who openly supported Martin Luther King? Right.

More to the point, though, there's plenty of evidence that Nixon conceded not out of any sense of civic duty (remember who we're talking about here!) but because his allies failed to turn up any evidence that the vote in Chicago was in fact illegitimate:

National GOP officials plunged in. Thruston Morton flew to Chicago to confer with Illinois Republican leaders on strategy, while party Treasurer Meade Alcorn announced Nixon would win the state. With Nixon distancing himself from the effort, the Cook County state’s attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, stepped forward to lead the challenge. A Daley antagonist and potential rival for the mayoralty, Adamowski had lost his job to a Democrat by 25,000 votes. The closeness of his defeat entitled him to a recount, which began Nov. 29.

Completed Dec. 9, the recount of 863 precincts showed that the original tally had undercounted Nixon’s (and Adamowski’s) votes, but only by 943, far from the 4,500 needed to alter the results. In fact, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, Nixon’s vote was overcounted. Displeased, the Republicans took the case to federal court, only to have a judge dismiss the suits. Still undeterred, they turned to the State Board of Elections, which was composed of four Republicans, including the governor, and one Democrat. Yet the state board, too, unanimously rejected the petition, citing the GOP’s failure to provide even a single affidavit on its behalf. The national party finally backed off after Dec. 19, when the nation’s Electoral College certified Kennedy as the new president—but even then local Republicans wouldn’t accept the Illinois results.

A recount did wind up changing the winner in one state: Hawaii. On Dec. 28, a circuit court judge ruled that the state—originally called Kennedy’s but awarded to Nixon after auditing errors emerged—belonged to Kennedy after all. Nixon’s net gain: -3 electoral votes.

But even if the Dems did steal Illinois, 1) again, that still wasn't enough, and 2) to suggest JFK was in bed with the Klan - who hate Catholics just as much as blacks and Jews - is absurd on its face and you know it.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "First of all, California had more voters in 2016 than in 2012."

Yes, California has more voters today than it had last year - in fact, the entire American population is continually GROWING!

308,745,538 - population of the United States in 2010
328,335,000 - approximate population of the U.S. today
+19,589,462 - America's population increase over the past nine years

Okay, so our nation's population expands by about two-million people a year, judging by these figures - so HOW is it even possible that the Democratic Party's presidential vote has DROPPED now in the past two consecutive presidential elections? Check it out::

69,499,428 - 2008 popular votes received by Barack Obama
65,918,507 - 2012 popular votes received by Barack Obama
65,853,652 - 2016 popular votes received by Hillary Clinton
-3,645,776 - loss of Democratic Party presidential voters since '08!

I mean, even if the Democrats were breaking even, they shouldn't be going backwards, am I right? What has happened to all of their voters nationwide (except in California, where they've just added 900-thousand new voters for some odd reason!)

http://www.uselectionatlas.org

 

[YDB95]

Okay, so our nation's population expands by about two-million people a year, judging by these figures - so HOW is it even possible that the Democratic Party's presidential vote has DROPPED now in the past two consecutive presidential elections?

Third party votes, Republican votes, some people simply didn't vote this time around. Turnout varies. It ain't rocket science.

I mean, even if the Democrats were breaking even, they shouldn't be going backwards, am I right? What has happened to all of their voters nationwide (except in California, where they've just added 900-thousand new voters for some odd reason!)

It's not an odd reason at all, and I've explained it repeatedly.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "It's not an odd reason at all, and I've explained it repeatedly."

No, you really haven't. The HONEST explanation involves the state of California allowing illegals to vote in large numbers, but that doesn't forward the narrative that you've been attempting to push that Barack Obama wore out his welcome there. FACT: the U.S. population grew by approximately 8-million people between 2012 & 2016, but nationwide Hillary Clinton somehow managed to win FEWER popular votes!

65,918,507 - 2012 nationwide popular vote total for Barack Obama
65,853,652 - 2016 nationwide popular vote total for Hillary Clinton
-64,855 - the number of fewer popular votes won nationwide by Mrs. Clinton

Keep in mind, 2016 was the SECOND consecutive election in which the Democratic Party's presidential candidate has received fewer popular votes! For every Democrat who passed away after Obama's re-election there should be at least two NEW Democrats turning eighteen, right? So why aren't they voting for their party's candidates? Except, of course, in CALIFORNIA...

8,753,792 - 2016 California popular vote for Hillary Clinton
7,854,285 - 2012 California popular vote for Barack Obama
+899,507 - how many MORE votes Hillary got in California than did Obama four years earlier!

How is it Hillary does WORSE than Obama in 49-states, but does FAR BETTER than Obama in that one state where illegals are protected by sanctuary cities and not required to carry a photo-ID to vote?

Subtract all of the illegals voting in California, and Hillary finishes with 964,362 fewer votes nationwide than Obama!

 

[YDB95]

but that doesn't forward the narrative that you've been attempting to push that Barack Obama wore out his welcome there.

That's not what I said at all. What I said was that in numerous states - including but not only California - Clinton improved on Obama's showing in traditionally Republican suburbs where Trump was very unpopular. You've never even acknowledged I said that, much less provided any evidence against it.

How is it Hillary does WORSE than Obama in 49-states, but does FAR BETTER than Obama in that one state where illegals are protected by sanctuary cities and not required to carry a photo-ID to vote?

California is neither the only state with sanctuary cities, nor is it the only state that doesn't require photo ID to vote, nor is it the only state where Clinton did better than Obama. Study up.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "That's not what I said at all. What I said was that in numerous states - including but not only California - Clinton improved on Obama's showing in traditionally Republican suburbs where Trump was very unpopular. You've never even acknowledged I said that, much less provided any evidence against it."

So... what you seem to be saying is that nationwide Hillary couldn't even keep the votes of those same Democratic Party stalwarts who elected & then re-elected Barack Obama, with her actually finishing with 65-thousand FEWER people turning-out at the polls to support her, but in California she defeated Trump with a massive surge of REPUBLICAN votes? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Republicans do NOT like Mrs. Clinton! Even those Republicans who didn't support Donald Trump would have cast their votes for somebody else before rallying to Hillary!

I mean, the Republicans in the remaining 49-states certainly didn't rally to her cause, so WHY in California alone? The one explanation that makes any sense is California's naked efforts to increase Democratic Party power by encouraging illegals to go to the polls and cast ballots! That solid BLUE STATE had already given illegals drivers' licenses, food stamps, free health care & even free college educations (all to the great detriment of that state's overburdened taxpayers), and all that they've asked them to do in return is to vote for Democrat candidates in huge numbers, which the illegals have done!

" California is neither the only state with sanctuary cities, nor is it the only state that doesn't require photo ID to vote, nor is it the only state where Clinton did better than Obama. Study up."

FACT: Nationwide, Mrs. Clinton finishes with 65-thousand fewer votes in 2016 than Obama got in 2012 (despise an 8-million people increase in our population during those four years), but in the state of California she blows Obama away by nearly 900-thousand votes? And YOU try to explain that away by insisting that it was Republicans turning-out in droves to support the former First Lady? Sorry, YDB95, but that makes little-to-no sense.

 

[icanhelp1]

YDB95 writes: "That's not what I said at all. What I said was that in numerous states - including but not only California - Clinton improved on Obama's showing in traditionally Republican suburbs where Trump was very unpopular. You've never even acknowledged I said that, much less provided any evidence against it."

So... what you seem to be saying is that nationwide Hillary couldn't even keep the votes of those same Democratic Party stalwarts who elected & then re-elected Barack Obama, with her actually finishing with 65-thousand FEWER people turning-out at the polls to support her, but in California she defeated Trump with a massive surge of REPUBLICAN votes? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Republicans do NOT like Mrs. Clinton! Even those Republicans who didn't support Donald Trump would have cast their votes for somebody else before rallying to Hillary!

I mean, the Republicans in the remaining 49-states certainly didn't rally to her cause, so WHY in California alone? The one explanation that makes any sense is California's naked efforts to increase Democratic Party power by encouraging illegals to go to the polls and cast ballots! That solid BLUE STATE had already given illegals drivers' licenses, food stamps, free health care & even free college educations (all to the great detriment of that state's overburdened taxpayers), and all that they've asked them to do in return is to vote for Democrat candidates in huge numbers, which the illegals have done!

" California is neither the only state with sanctuary cities, nor is it the only state that doesn't require photo ID to vote, nor is it the only state where Clinton did better than Obama. Study up."

FACT: Nationwide, Mrs. Clinton finishes with 65-thousand fewer votes in 2016 than Obama got in 2012 (despise an 8-million people increase in our population during those four years), but in the state of California she blows Obama away by nearly 900-thousand votes? And YOU try to explain that away by insisting that it was Republicans turning-out in droves to support the former First Lady? Sorry, YDB95, but that makes little-to-no sense.

You two guys need to get a room. LOL

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "That's not what I said at all. What I said was that in numerous states - including but not only California - Clinton improved on Obama's showing in traditionally Republican suburbs where Trump was very unpopular. You've never even acknowledged I said that, much less provided any evidence against it."

So... what you seem to be saying is that nationwide Hillary couldn't even keep the votes of those same Democratic Party stalwarts who elected & then re-elected Barack Obama, with her actually finishing with 65-thousand FEWER people turning-out at the polls to support her, but in California she defeated Trump with a massive surge of REPUBLICAN votes? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Republicans do NOT like Mrs. Clinton! Even those Republicans who didn't support Donald Trump would have cast their votes for somebody else before rallying to Hillary!

The numbers don't lie. Clinton improved on Obama in Republican-leaning suburban areas, whether you understand why or not.

I mean, the Republicans in the remaining 49-states certainly didn't rally to her cause, so WHY in California alone?

It wasn't just California. As I already said.

 

[Dumpington]

"Clinton improved on Obama in Republican-leaning suburban areas, whether you understand why or not."

We have already proven that Barack Obama's popularity was dwindling rapidly by the time he was re-elected, but that doesn't explain Hillary Clinton doing even WORSE than Obama nationwide! Even if black voters were abandoning her candidacy in droves, how is it that she finished with even FEWER overall votes nationwide? That's back-to-back election cycles where a major American political party's overall vote SHRINKS!

source material: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

"It wasn't just California. As I already said."

Yes, there were other Democratic Party-run states where illegals were encourgaed to vote - protected by sanctuary city laws and not required to show a photo-ID to precinct workers, but an enormous surge of 900-thousand new votes? Be serious, YDB95? If Democrats were so surprisingly unenthusiastic over Mrs. Clinton's candidacy in the rest of the nation, WHY the enormous enthusiasm in California?

And DON'T go repeating that nonsense about California Republicans LOVING the former First Lady, because that never happened!

 

[YDB95]

We have already proven that Barack Obama's popularity was dwindling rapidly by the time he was re-elected, but that doesn't explain Hillary Clinton doing even WORSE than Obama nationwide! Even if black voters were abandoning her candidacy in droves, how is it that she finished with even FEWER overall votes nationwide? That's back-to-back election cycles where a major American political party's overall vote SHRINKS!

There is nothing unusual about that. Nothing. And really, think about it: if a party were cheating, wouldn't their vote totals go up?

Yes, there were other Democratic Party-run states where illegals were encourgaed to vote - protected by sanctuary city laws and not required to show a photo-ID to precinct workers, but an enormous surge of 900-thousand new votes? Be serious, YDB95? If Democrats were so surprisingly unenthusiastic over Mrs. Clinton's candidacy in the rest of the nation, WHY the enormous enthusiasm in California?

The enthusiasm wasn't pro-Clinton, it was anti-Trump. And it wasn't just in blue states. It happened in suburban areas in red states like Texas and Georgia too.

And DON'T go repeating that nonsense about California Republicans LOVING the former First Lady, because that never happened!

Repeating? I never said any such thing. I'm old enough to remember how they treated her when she was first lady, and "loving" is about as far from the truth as you could possibly get. But that's not the point.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "And really, think about it: if a party were cheating, wouldn't their vote totals go up?"

That's the beauty of the Electoral College, YDB95!

If one political party cheats in one particular state (let's say, California), they can steal that one state's electoral votes, but they CAN'T steal the entire election! All of those illegals voting in California (which gave Hillary Clinton 55 electoral votes) didn't help her win neighboring Arizona, or Ohio, North Carolina, or Florida!

"The enthusiasm wasn't pro-Clinton, it was anti-Trump. And it wasn't just in blue states. It happened in suburban areas in red states like Texas and Georgia too."

Yes, a LOT of Republicans disliked the idea of Donald Trump winning the White House (e.g. Mitt Romney & John McCain), but a lot of Independents and even Democrats loved that idea and voted in large numbers for him! I remember liberal commentators (e.g. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow) saying that Texas & Georgia just might go BLUE in 2016, but that was just wishful thinking! Trump carried both of those states handily!

"I'm old enough to remember how they treated her when she was first lady..."

President Clinton put his wife in charge of reforming health care back in '93 & '94, and she was unsuccessful. The result in the '94 elections was Bill's Democratic Party losing 54-House & 8-Senate seats, giving the Republicans congressional majorities in BOTH houses for the first time in fifty-years!

Sixteen years later, President Obama WAS successful in passing his health care legislation, and THIS time the Democratic Party lost 63-House & 6-Senate seats! And yet, to this day, some Dems continue to believe that the American people LOVE their ObamaCare!

 

[Boxlicker101]

YDB95 writes: "And really, think about it: if a party were cheating, wouldn't their vote totals go up?"

That's the beauty of the Electoral College, YDB95!

If one political party cheats in one particular state (let's say, California), they can steal that one state's electoral votes, but they CAN'T steal the entire election! All of those illegals voting in California (which gave Hillary Clinton 55 electoral votes) didn't help her win neighboring Arizona, or Ohio, North Carolina, or Florida!

"The enthusiasm wasn't pro-Clinton, it was anti-Trump. And it wasn't just in blue states. It happened in suburban areas in red states like Texas and Georgia too."

Yes, a LOT of Republicans disliked the idea of Donald Trump winning the White House (e.g. Mitt Romney & John McCain), but a lot of Independents and even Democrats loved that idea and voted in large numbers for him! I remember liberal commentators (e.g. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow) saying that Texas & Georgia just might go BLUE in 2016, but that was just wishful thinking! Trump carried both of those states handily!

"I'm old enough to remember how they treated her when she was first lady..."

President Clinton put his wife in charge of reforming health care back in '93 & '94, and she was unsuccessful. The result in the '94 elections was Bill's Democratic Party losing 54-House & 8-Senate seats, giving the Republicans congressional majorities in BOTH houses for the first time in fifty-years!

Sixteen years later, President Obama WAS successful in passing his health care legislation, and THIS time the Democratic Party lost 63-House & 6-Senate seats! And yet, to this day, some Dems continue to believe that the American people LOVE their ObamaCare!

I will always believe that in the 2016 election, most voters looked at the candidates presented by the two major parties, gagged, decided which one was worse and voted for the other one or voted for a third party candidate. Very few people actually voted FOR either Hillary or The Donald.

I have no proof of that, of course; that's strictly my opinion. BTW, I also believe Bernie would have done even worse.

 

[Dumpington]

Boxlicker101 writes: "Very few people actually voted FOR either Hillary or The Donald."

That's true. They both had very high negatives.

"BTW, I also believe Bernie would have done even worse."

I agree. At least Hillary had a united party behind her. Bernie wouldn't have had even that. In his home state of Vermont, he doesn't even run for office as a DEMOCRAT! His socialist base may VOTE Democrat, but they refuse to label themselves as such!

Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, had the president & his wife out campaigning for her, along with former President Clinton (her husband), and former Vice President Al Gore. But they all weren't enough to help her win any of the key states that she needed to return to the White House!

 

[YDB95]

"The enthusiasm wasn't pro-Clinton, it was anti-Trump. And it wasn't just in blue states. It happened in suburban areas in red states like Texas and Georgia too."

Yes, a LOT of Republicans disliked the idea of Donald Trump winning the White House (e.g. Mitt Romney & John McCain), but a lot of Independents and even Democrats loved that idea and voted in large numbers for him! I remember liberal commentators (e.g. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow) saying that Texas & Georgia just might go BLUE in 2016, but that was just wishful thinking! Trump carried both of those states handily!

And yet you tell us again and again you don't watch Maddow...

"I'm old enough to remember how they treated her when she was first lady..."

President Clinton put his wife in charge of reforming health care back in '93 & '94, and she was unsuccessful. The result in the '94 elections was Bill's Democratic Party losing 54-House & 8-Senate seats, giving the Republicans congressional majorities in BOTH houses for the first time in fifty-years!

Sixteen years later, President Obama WAS successful in passing his health care legislation, and THIS time the Democratic Party lost 63-House & 6-Senate seats! And yet, to this day, some Dems continue to believe that the American people LOVE their ObamaCare!

"Love" may be too strong of a word, but by increasing margins they do approve of it.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

The electoral college let's all Americans have a voice in their government. Funny how people who claim to represent everyone are bothered by this concept. Couldn't be because a few urban regions that are solidly democrat would decide issues for the rest of the country.

Reaching people and convincing them why they should vote a certain way is much harder. Also so is producing results.

It is much easier to appeal to a smaller group of people who will be happy to let a centralize government run rough shot over everyone else.

This part of the 5 year plan?

 

[KeithD]

The electoral college let's all Americans have a voice in their government. Funny how people who claim to represent everyone are bothered by this concept. Couldn't be because a few urban regions that are solidly democrat would decide issues for the rest of the country.

Reaching people and convincing them why they should vote a certain way is much harder. Also so is producing results.

It is much easier to appeal to a smaller group of people who will be happy to let a centralize government run rough shot over everyone else.

This part of the 5 year plan?

You obviously are clueless about the concept of every person an equal vote. I'm not a bit surprised. You obviously don't think either a person living in the city or choosing to be a Democrat deserves an equal vote to you ignorant shit kickers.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You obviously are clueless about the concept of every person an equal vote. I'm not a bit surprised. You obviously don't think either a person living in the city or choosing to be a Democrat deserves an equal vote to you ignorant shit kickers.

And you also seem to be clueless about the Constitution, which includes the Electoral College and gives every state, regardless of population, two senators and at least one member of the House of Reps.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

You obviously are clueless about the concept of every person an equal vote. I'm not a bit surprised. You obviously don't think either a person living in the city or choosing to be a Democrat deserves an equal vote to you ignorant shit kickers.

No I have enough intelligence to know just because someone lives in a rural area has as much right to their opinion and vote as someone who lives in a city. The electoral college is meant to allow equal representation in congress. Every state get's two Senators and the house's membership is based off of the state's population so nobody's voice isn't heard through their representative. The founders understood how democracy worked and the pitfalls. One of the reasons they discussed and decided not to have a property requirement, so a renter and a landowner have the same power.

Your petty insults aside the system is fine, and your proposed change is to "fix" things in your favor. A pseudo-intellectual like you just can't stand the idea that someone who pumps gas and doesn't think like you has the same vote. This takes me back to the democrat traditions like poll taxes or having to be tested on the constitution before being allowed to register to vote.

 

[YDB95]

No I have enough intelligence to know just because someone lives in a rural area has as much right to their opinion and vote as someone who lives in a city.

Exactly right. They have as much right to their vote, not more of a right, which is what the electoral college effectively gives people in low-population states. (Not necessarily rural voters, by the way - Texas and California both have lots of rural areas, and tiny states like Rhode Island and Delaware have cities.)

The electoral college is meant to allow equal representation in congress.

No, it isn't. It's a mechanism for electing the president, nothing more. The Constitution is actually somewhat hands-off as far as equal representation in Congress is concerned, which is why one-person-one-vote wasn't actually established law until the 1960s.

Every state get's two Senators and the house's membership is based off of the state's population so nobody's voice isn't heard through their representative. The founders understood how democracy worked and the pitfalls. One of the reasons they discussed and decided not to have a property requirement, so a renter and a landowner have the same power.

Not true. Until well into the 19th century, only landowners got a vote. Also, the founders really didn't - and in fact couldn't - understand how democracy worked, as it had never really been tried before then.

Your petty insults aside the system is fine, and your proposed change is to "fix" things in your favor. A pseudo-intellectual like you just can't stand the idea that someone who pumps gas and doesn't think like you has the same vote.

Exactly what did I say to give you that idea?

This takes me back to the democrat traditions like poll taxes or having to be tested on the constitution before being allowed to register to vote.

You do understand that the whole point of those road blocks - which Republicans occasionally endorse nowadays - was to keep disenfranchised people from voting, don't you? And that's exactly what the Republicans are pushing today with Voter ID laws and the like.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

Exactly right. They have as much right to their vote, not more of a right, which is what the electoral college effectively gives people in low-population states. (Not necessarily rural voters, by the way - Texas and California both have lots of rural areas, and tiny states like Rhode Island and Delaware have cities.)



No, it isn't. It's a mechanism for electing the president, nothing more. The Constitution is actually somewhat hands-off as far as equal representation in Congress is concerned, which is why one-person-one-vote wasn't actually established law until the 1960s.



Not true. Until well into the 19th century, only landowners got a vote. Also, the founders really didn't - and in fact couldn't - understand how democracy worked, as it had never really been tried before then.




Exactly what did I say to give you that idea?



You do understand that the whole point of those road blocks - which Republicans occasionally endorse nowadays - was to keep disenfranchised people from voting, don't you? And that's exactly what the Republicans are pushing today with Voter ID laws and the like.

I believe the founders understood the classics which included study of the ancient Greeks and their take on democracy. I thought voting qualifications were decided earlier, but as with most things it took time. I do know their was debate about the requirement and it is probably why it fell to the states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States


Urban areas tend to have a higher percentage of democrat voters despite failures and discussion. If we didn't have the electoral college a few urban areas would be supporting candidates that reflected their issues not the country as whole. I'm not a supporter of a one party system even if I agree with it much of the time.

Also I have no problem with confirming your identity before doing something as important as voting. I think there should be ample time and low if not no costs to help people get the necessary ID even if only used for voting.

 

[YDB95]

Also I have no problem with confirming your identity before doing something as important as voting. I think there should be ample time and low if not no costs to help people get the necessary ID even if only used for voting.

The people who are pushing voter ID laws are, however, opposed to providing that help - and in fact are making it more difficult for people to get a valid ID. That's why this issue just isn't as simple as some here are making it out to be.

 

[KeithD]

NThe electoral college is meant to allow equal representation in congress.

No it isn't. It was meant to allow Unequal representation in Congress to get the less-populous states to ratify the Constitution. If you think otherwise, by all means explain how it equalizes anything at all. It was useful at the time not to have gaps in the geographical pattern but it's obsolete now and continues to be what it was to begin with--unequal. The most disenfranchising part of it is the "winner take all" assignment of state electoral votes, which is slowly being addressed by individual states' decision to assign the votes proportionally to the split in voting within the states.