This map shows Trump won a majority vote in 3,084 of the 3,141 counties!!!!

[ocean515]

imagine if there was a popular vote, and the Dems ran government. They could decide to take all the income taxes collected and merely allocate those tax moneys to a few hugely populated states and thus guarantee re-election by buying off the 6 most populous states.

The exact reason given for devising the EC in the first place, and demonstrated on November 8.

If Trump got the votes he did, and Hillary received no votes in 9 states and districts she actually won, California's vote margin would still have allowed her to win. That would mean she won 13 states/districts, to Trumps 43.

The EC worked exactly as it was designed to.

It's delicious to watch people flail about trying to ignore how critical this principle is when selecting the President of the United States.

 

[katzgar]

shows that it is a state of sheeple and bots or worse, that the government out there has turned most of the citizens int teat suckling government addicts

nope, just another dishonest post

 

[TurtleDude]

The exact reason given for devising the EC in the first place, and demonstrated on November 8.

If Trump got the votes he did, and Hillary received no votes in 9 states and districts she actually won, California's vote margin would still have allowed her to win. That would mean she won 13 states/districts, to Trumps 43.

The EC worked exactly as it was designed to.

It's delicious to watch people flail about trying to ignore how critical this principle is when selecting the President of the United States.

I saw an interesting map a few weeks ago. If only property owners could vote, Trump would have won California and every other state save Washington and Oregon. SO the EC protected those of us who generally FUND the government from those who generally are suckling on the government teat

 

[TurtleDude]

nope, just another dishonest post

for an "independent" your posts sure seem lock step with the big government, Hillary fan club. California is filled with Bots who are reactionary supporters of big federal government. It used to be that places like California attracted self sufficient independent people from the east who wanted to make it on their own-to have a blank canvas, so to say, to paint a picture of their own destiny. Now that state's big cities have become cesspools of chirping little baby birds wanting everyone else to feed them

 

[katzgar]

for an "independent" your posts sure seem lock step with the big government, Hillary fan club. California is filled with Bots who are reactionary supporters of big federal government. It used to be that places like California attracted self sufficient independent people from the east who wanted to make it on their own-to have a blank canvas, so to say, to paint a picture of their own destiny. Now that state's big cities have become cesspools of chirping little baby birds wanting everyone else to feed them

dishonest posts like yours are never on my good list

 

[Master PO]

Thank you. A Constitutional Amendment is one way to do it. Another way is the national popular vote movement to simply get states to pledge to cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote. But I suspect that is fraught with peril as it opens to door to really nasty fights when somebody backs out with all the questions that brings on.

Do you realize that when I and others talk about this, one of the things we hope to do is to motivate action on this very issue. So what i and others are doing is exactly what you suggest.

would be found to be unconstitutional for denying the people their representation.

 

[Moderate Right]

Thank you. A Constitutional Amendment is one way to do it. Another way is the national popular vote movement to simply get states to pledge to cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote. But I suspect that is fraught with peril as it opens to door to really nasty fights when somebody backs out with all the questions that brings on.

Do you realize that when I and others talk about this, one of the things we hope to do is to motivate action on this very issue. So what i and others are doing is exactly what you suggest.

I wholeheartedly think that any state that wants to should change their electoral rules to pledge their states electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but only the ones who want to. Great idea!

 

[ocean515]

I saw an interesting map a few weeks ago. If only property owners could vote, Trump would have won California and every other state save Washington and Oregon. SO the EC protected those of us who generally FUND the government from those who generally are suckling on the government teat

It would be laughable for anyone to argue California, and thereby, California voters, have not been bought off by the radical policies underlying Socialist Progressivism. No other state has placed it's citizens in position to be dependent on the government to survive. No other state has done more to harbor and reward illegal aliens. The list is long. And it creates an environment complexly different that what citizens in other states place at the top of the lists of concerns.

These are all issues, causes, and responses specifically identified by the Founding Fathers as being capable of influencing popular votes in major urban environments.

It was for that reason they listened to the concerns of rural states whose citizens voices could be permanently silenced by the overwhelming power of citizens in more populous states.

It was simply to allow the voice of people in different regions, with different concerns and challenges a voice in the process of selecting the President.

It remains astonishing that so many who would suggest they are the sole protectors of minority rights, fall silent on this issue.

 

[haymarket]

would be found to be unconstitutional for denying the people their representation.

The Beaver: Gee whiz Wally - why didn't any of the people behind that effort think of that before they spent all that time on it?
Wally: And especially the state legislatures which already singed onto the effort. You woulda thunk they knew that too.
Eddie Haskell: You guys are just stupid. Those folks have fancy lawyers who already researched it and told em its okay to go ahead. They would not waste all the time and effort otherwise.
The Beaver: Gee Eddie - you sure are smart.

 

[haymarket]

It would be laughable for anyone to argue California, and thereby, California voters, have not been bought off by the radical policies underlying Socialist Progressivism.

I notice that nowhere in the rest of your post did you offer any evidence proving that any voter was bought off in California.

 

[haymarket]

The EC worked exactly as it was designed to.

Exactly - it allowed a tiny number of powerful elites to thwart the collective will of the American people. A wonderful mechanism from the 1700's from elitists trying to preserve their own influence and their own power over the people.

 

[haymarket]

would be found to be unconstitutional for denying the people their representation.

Since electors can vote for anyone they want to - there is no grounds for their actions to be declared as unconstitutional.

 

[Master PO]

The Beaver: Gee whiz Wally - why didn't any of the people behind that effort think of that before they spent all that time on it?
Wally: And especially the state legislatures which already singed onto the effort. You woulda thunk they knew that too.
Eddie Haskell: You guys are just stupid. Those folks have fancy lawyers who already researched it and told em its okay to go ahead. They would not waste all the time and effort otherwise.
The Beaver: Gee Eddie - you sure are smart.

look at what you have escalated to too!

i knew already knew that you will not answer simple yes of no questions, deny anything which does not fall within your agenda.

promoted the federalist 68 when i suits you then reject it later when things dont go your way.

as i have said on many occasions...33 years no way!

 

[Master PO]

Since electors can vote for anyone they want to - there is no grounds for their actions to be declared as unconstitutional.

when the people vote for a candidate in a direct election, the candidate is a representative of the people, thats a basic of a representative government

 

[haymarket]

look at what you have escalated to too!

i knew already knew that you will not answer simple yes of no questions, deny anything which does not fall within your agenda.

promoted the federalist 68 when i suits you then reject it later when things dont go your way.

as i have said on many occasions...33 years no way!

Your post was not even a pretend reply to the point of my post that you led with.

 

[Master PO]

Your post was not even a pretend reply to the point of my post that you led with.

your post was dribbled nonsense with 33 years wasted.

 

[haymarket]

when the people vote for a candidate in a direct election, the candidate is a representative of the people, thats a basic of a representative government

Electors can vote for anybody they want to vote for. If state binds them to vote for certain candidates - the law would cover that as the Constitution is silent about a states ability to do that. . So there is no issue of any constitutional violation.

 

[ocean515]

I notice that nowhere in the rest of your post did you offer any evidence proving that any voter was bought off in California.

Good for you haymarket. Do you require a participation trophy as a result.

California is home to the highest supplemental poverty in the Nation. Further, it is responsible for @ 30% of the total all states spend on public assistance. I haven't checked in the last few months, but @ 1 out of 6 people living in California receive some form of public assistance. Further, California is a safe haven for illegal aliens, where 3-4 million have been welcomed to live.

When all these considerable factors are taken together, it's clear there is a financial and what, residential(?) influence being given. A review of liberal/socialist progressive campaigning in the state, and across the country for that matter, focused on how all this government support was threatened by a Trump presidency. Of course the illegal alien issue doesn't even need to be discussed.

These "payments", or if you like "promises" are exactly what was identified and written about among the Founding Fathers when debating the creation of the EC. It was the ability to influence voters in large population centers that compelled them to try and protect the voices in less populated regions from the potential to ignore them.

It remains a mystery how those who are against the EC can continue to run away from this fact, while expecting people to take their argument against the EC seriously.

 

[haymarket]

your post was dribble with 33 years wasted.

I see the personal insult - but where is the refutation of the point raised?

 

[Master PO]

Electors can vote for anybody they want to vote for. If state binds them to vote for certain candidates - the law would cover that as the Constitution is silent about a states ability to do that. . So there is no issue of any constitutional violation.

wrong, the electors are elected by the people in a direct vote therefore they are representatives of the people.

 

[haymarket]

Good for you haymarket. Do you require a participation trophy as a result.

California is home to the highest supplemental poverty in the Nation. Further, it is responsible for @ 30% of the total all states spend on public assistance. I haven't checked in the last few months, but @ 1 out of 6 people living in California receive some form of public assistance. Further, California is a safe haven for illegal aliens, where 3-4 million have been welcomed to live.

When all these considerable factors are taken together, it's clear there is a financial and what, residential(?) influence being given. A review of liberal/socialist progressive campaigning in the state, and across the country for that matter, focused on how all this government support was threatened by a Trump presidency. Of course the illegal alien issue doesn't even need to be discussed.

These "payments", or if you like "promises" are exactly what was identified and written about among the Founding Fathers when debating the creation of the EC.

It remains a mystery how those who are against the EC can continue to run away from this fact, while expecting people to take their argument against the EC seriously.

So any state that has any program that benefits any citizen in that state has then been "bought off". Or do you just have it in hard for California because they voted so heavy Democrat?

Thats a rhetorical question as the answer is crystal clear.

 

[Master PO]

I see the personal insult - but where is the refutation of the point raised?

refutation of "the beaver"?

 

[haymarket]

wrong, the electors are elected by the people in a direct vote therefore they are representatives of the people.

Any they can vote for anybody they want to..... and throughout our history many have. And if state law says otherwise - that too is constitutional as the Constitution is silent about that.

 

[ocean515]

Exactly - it allowed a tiny number of powerful elites to thwart the collective will of the American people. A wonderful mechanism from the 1700's from elitists trying to preserve their own influence and their own power over the people.

I don't think the good people living in States not found on the East and West Coast consider themselves powerful elitists, but considering how the left treats them, I'm sure they would appreciate the complement.

 

[haymarket]

refutation of "the beaver"?

Do you know what it means to speak to the message rather than get preoccupied with the messenger? :doh:roll: