https://lidblog.com/liberals-electorial-college/

Garryowen

P.S. This is really about the second amendment.

I was watching CBS news this morning. I noticed they said that Colorado was ready to vote to have their electoral college votes go to whoever wins the popular vote in the nation. So I checked and 11 states have already switched to national popular vote. That amounts to 173 electoral votes. They are trying to get above 270 votes to change the whole electoral college to national popular vote.

Garryowen

It's a dangerous proposition to be sure. I did some math shortly after the 2016 election , Hillary could throw every vote for her away in I think it was 13 states she won and still win the popular vote.i might be off a state of two.

Hahaha why is everything against the second amendment. Way too much doomsday on Trapperman. Want to know what’s cool about our country, if we want to change things, we can. For it to change to popular votes, a majority of the states need to change. If a majority of the states want to change then it should change. Just because we don’t agree with something, doesn’t mean we are correct. Welcome to the USA. If a majority of the country wants to screw up the country, then they can. It’s their constitutional right. Reading some of these post is worse then listening to Talk Radio.

Bunch of children. Wanting to shut down the minority

It doesn't take a majority of the states just a majority of the electoral college. Eleven stats have done it so far. Colorado is set to be the 12th. They have 173 votes now and Colorado has 9 votes. So they will have a total of 182 votes. They need to above get to 270. The states that have done this all went for Hillary in 2016.

If they succeed no one will care what happens in the fly over states. We hunt, fish and trap in the fly over states. That's why it matters.

Garryowen

Pretty sure this compact is unconstitutional, but Congress won't do at about it and I don't have much hope in the SCOTUS either.

I could be wrong but I think it would take a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College.

They are not eliminating it. They are turning it to their advantage. If they are above 270 votes, it doesn't matter what the other states do. It's a backdoor way to make it void.

Garryowen

I don't think it's unconstitutional, I don't think the electors are required to vote for who the people of their state voted for. They should, obviously, but I don't think it's required. Also, the electoral college doesn't follow the principle of "one person, one vote". It gives greater voting power to states with smaller populations. That's something to consider. Personally, I think that although the electoral college has worked in our favor with Bush vs Gore and Trump vs Clinton, I'd like to see a popular vote. It'd force candidates to campaign in every state, to fight for every vote, not just the votes in the swing states.

They want to control what they do not understand and are clueless on how to manage it in any way just a disaster waiting to happen!

we have left constitutional government in the dust a looooong time ago.

If you end up in tax court the burden of proof is on you not the government

The constitution mandates congress to print and coin money. Not delegate that authority to a privately owned bank

The national firearms act of 1934 had only one side arguing at the supreme court. The government side. Yet it is claimed still today to be a valid court case

Unconstitutional search and seizure is done daily. Cash is stolen routinely by L.E. even when no charges are filed. To get that cash back takes thousands of dollars in attorney fee's that are never reimbursed by the government or L.E. When they take a few thousand it is unrecoverable due to the cost of attorney's and courts.

Do NOT count on the constitution to protect you from anything. Including our country becoming a true democracy.

So lets say candidate x wins in CO, and enough states to get past 270. Lest say CO has 14 EC votes. Candidate Y wins the popular vote. 7 of CO's EC members personally voted for X in the general election. Do your really think they will turn around now and vote against their own state's popular vote when it really matters??? That's the situation that would need to fall into place for this to be relevant.

If we divide the total U.S. population (about 319 million) by 538 electoral college votes, each electoral college vote should equal about 593K people. So if we take our nation’s most populated state—California—and divide its 39.1 million population by 593K, the state should get sixty-six electoral college votes. Under the Electoral College system, however, the state only gets fifty-five electoral college votes. That’s a difference of eleven electoral college votes—more than all the electoral college votes of the vaunted swing states of Iowa (six) and New Hampshire (four). It also happens that California has our nation's largest minority population, with about 24 million people, or 61.5 percent of the state’s population. Meanwhile, if we look at one of our nation’s least populated states—North Dakota—and divide its 757K population by 593K, the state should get about one electoral vote. However, under the Electoral College system, it gets three votes. It also happens that North Dakota has the lowest minority population in the country—less than ten thousand. That means in North Dakota a voter—who is most likely to be white—has three times more say in who gets to become President. And it means that a California voter—who is most likely to be not white—has a vote that is worth only about 83 percent as the rest of the country.

The above is copied from an article explaining how the electoral college gives some people more voting power than others, depending on what state they live in. It's kind of a goony article from a liberal source, trying to make some race-based argument for a popular vote, which is stupid. Popular vote is good, but the race-based argument is stupid, plain and simple. Their number are correct though, and it shows how smaller states' voters have more power than larger states' voters.

Full article here

To get the majority of the vote they don't have to campaign in every state. All they have to do is campaign in the largest cities. That's where the majority of the vote lies. Our founding fathers knew that. That is why they came up with the electoral college is give better representation to all states, large or small.

Garryowen

If federal elections ever went to a popular vote you would never see a Republican President again until it was to late.

I keep getting a couple things mixed up, but is it starve a fever and feed a cold. The other is the sheep on the right and the goats on the left.

Its bad when you have dry rot, I say oh well the foundation is still good. Then I hear the jack hammers running and my heart sinks.

Nm currently has a bill or measure to get rid of the electoral college. If I remember correctly our votes wouldn't matter

Do you really want the liberals in New York, California and Chicago determining your second amendment rights? Or your rights to hunting, fishing and trapping? How long do you think you will still have those rights?

Garryowen

I like the way NE and a couple of other states divide their electoral college votes instead of the candidate who wins popular vote in that state gets all the electoral college votes. I'd rather see that system. Here in MN the Twin Cities with their high population always determines the outcome. The electoral college votes should be divided individually by district.

Why? Can republicans not win over a majority of the population with their ideas?

I'm not sure about that. The way it is right now, certain states are "in the bag", so to speak, for each side. Some states are guaranteed to go republican, and some states are guaranteed to go democrat, so there's no need to campaign in those states. They just need to focus on the swing states. With a popular vote, a republican candidate would have good reason to go campaign in california, for example, because there's actually a good number of republicans there. They're just outnumbered by the democrats.

True, however they are going for the quick knock out right now. It's arrogant of them to think that the republicans will never again be the majority in the popular vote. This could backfire on them. They believe that Hillary should have won the election because she won the popular vote. Did you really want Hillary to be president?

This is a back door power grab.

Garryowen

messing with the constitution is rarely a good idea. prohibition for example.

That's exactly how it is in MN. The liberal Twin Cities has always determined the winner. That's why the electoral college votes need to be divided by district like a few other states have done.

Both parties have created a mess of what our founders intended. Our founders intended presidential elections to be an election of electors free to act as free agents not rubber stamps.

No, they cannot.

The majority of the population in this Country lives in urban centers. The vast majority of these people are liberals an vote Democrat. These are the people that believe it is government's job to protect them. They think more gun laws will make them safer. They don't seem to mind government intruding into every aspect of their lives and many of them receive free stuff;subsidized housing, food, medical...

These folks are not going to vote against their cash cow. They believe that voting Democrat and getting more free stuff beats working for a living.

Mitt Romney found this put out in the 2012 election cycle. His message was work hard for a better life. He was blown out of the water by Obama's free cell phones for everyone.

Conservatives tend to live in the country. They are the hard working, self-sufficient types that have little use for government handouts or intrusions. Look at any election map, state or Country-wide. 90% of the area will be red with the blue being all the large urban centers. They out-number the conservatives.

Add to that the liberal's control of education and the news media.

So yes, if the electoral college is eliminated I seriously doubt there would ever be another republican President unless the party goes full-liberal.

I'd love to see an electoral college system set up on a state basis for state elections, give us country folk a voice and quit having state elections decided by liberal citidiots.

If republicans can't convince a majority of voters to vote for them, then why should they be elected? Shouldn't the majority rule?


(I'm playing devil's advocate here. My point is that republicans/anybody who wants to win an election should convince a majority of voters that they have the best ideas)

It's the fatal flaw of republics. Historically republics are small as large republics tend to self implode (see Rome).

If you watch the news (and not just fox) you will see that the Democrat party is slowly breaking down. We like to put a lot of blame of corruption on Democrats, but Republicans were just as bad. Lots of promises, no action. It was the norm for our Government. Two sides with polar opposite views and the threat of losing your seat if you disagreed with your fellow party members. Then President Trump comes in. The reason old timer Republicans didn’t like him is because Trump didn’t care what they thought. He knew what the people wanted. Once these old timers realized they couldn’t control him, they had to listen. He totally reformed the Republican Party. More people are starting to agree with Republicans because the party as a whole isn’t as extreme as it once was. Now some of the younger Democrats are starting to see they can voice their own opinion no matter what their upper class men think. So now you have the old extremist liberals, and the more flexible liberals. A majority of our country doesn’t like extremism. Democrats are going to have to move more to the right just like Trump has moved the Republicans more to the left. When CNN is making negative comments about Pelosi, it shows how bad of a situation they are getting themselves into. I think that a Republican can win a Majority Vote. To do that they are going to have to adopt some of there wants, but that’s how it’s suppose to be.

Even thought they've tried, Republicans have discovered you can't outgive a Democrat.

Then republicans should try to convince people that giving away other people's money isn't the answer to the country's woes, and instead make a case for what is a better solution.

The founders were well aware of the evil of Democracy, they were familiar the the "founder of the Philosophy" Plato and his work "Platos Republic". It was never intended that every nimwit with a pulse 18 years or older be allowed to vote. As we continue going more towards "majority rules" we will see a continued decline, rights will be lost or restricted and fate will deal us a bad hand and hard times, from those hard times strong men will arise to lead us back towards good times and the cycle will continue as it always has and always will.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...basic-income_us_5acfa5a1e4b0edca2cb7c41a

This Guy’s Running For President And Wants To Give You ‘Free’ Money

Andrew Yang is running for president with an appealing offer: He wants to give Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 “free” money each month.

So he’s running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 on a platform of universal basic income (UBI) with the tagline “let’s put humanity first.” He hopes that a $1,000-a-month stipend for all U.S. citizens can ease the pain of a future where much less human labor will be needed.

So, you think the republicans need to convince liberals that giving away other peoples money won't solve our countries woes?

Garryowen

Both sides convince voters to vote for them not with ideas, but with gifts of Federal money. Most people can be bought. It is mostly a vote buying process.

I don't think so. If that were true, why do all the people getting the free stuff vote democrat?

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

Ben Franklin.


“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

Alexander Fraser Tytler

The big fish eat the little fish and when the little fish are gone then what?

Big oil came into southern Illinois and leased a lot of mineral rights for shale oil, the fight with the green people was intense but before they was even worked out the state saw that was a windfall for them and slapped a 12% tax on oil production. Thats 1/8 which used to be the owners share(they upped that to 20+%). Also during that time oil price was in a decline too. The oil business deals with markets all the time so thats a given but 12% tax was unacceptabe so before the first rig moved in the show was off.

Also a revenue for the state would be a very small tax ( not 1/8 share) on Lasalle Street transactions. But thats the golden calf that thou shall not touch.

Any way the little fish are being eaten ( the smart ones scurry to a safer place, I'm not smart ) So where does the next meal come from for these fish (may not be catfish, I'm thinking gars)

Anyway better to flee than hide in a cave where the only source of entertainment or truth is hand puppets. A cave can be a ready made grave.

If you pay no Federal taxes you should not get to vote in Federal elections. Now you can have a popular vote.

They did and do, it didn't and doesn't work. the promise of free stuff wins every time. And, as I have said many times, liberals own education and the news media. They use those two extremely powerful tools to indoctrinate our youth and propagandize the ignorant. They are winning.

We may be only a few generations away from complete socialism in this Country. It is happening now.

I am thankful the founding fathers recognized this inevitable eventuality and created a document to slow it down but I don't think there is any stopping it.

The dems winning the popular vote is a given. Clinton won that by 2.9 million. She won California by 4.3 million. Let that sink in!

Did those numbers count illegals and felons?

One of the reasons for these numbers is republicans don't waste their time advertising in States they are going to lose. Vice versa for democrats. There is no point in targeting voters in States you can't win with winner take all allocation of electoral votes.

No, one or two States should determine how the country goes, the reason the electoral college exists. Every State has a say so in determining who is elected. So technically majority doesn't rule and shouldn't. majority of the country doesn't want socialism? yet the urban centers are putting up socialists candidate like AOC or the muslim from michigan or wherever shes from? That is what you get when majority rules and the majority comes from urban liberal centers. How is ole AOC working out for NY? heard her ignorance just lost a little money for those folks up there? but hey majority rules right>>>

J

We have to start paying more attention to our election process. This country has changed drastically since the last election. We have tp pay better attention to what our elected officials stand for and vote for. We need to vote out anyone who doesn't value us. We need to support people who support us. We need to start speaking up for ourselves. Vote in very election.

Garryowen

You have got to be a birdbrain.No,they can't.
The dems buy votes, and a majority are on the free stuff gravy train.
And it is soon complete, free food, free housing, free healthcare, free college, free phones, soon free money for a living wage.
No body can compete with that.
No freedom, you are then a servant of the government.
One party rule while the free stuff last.
lol

That would make it tough for the democrats and would incite more voter fraud.

Unconstitutional? No. As best I remember constitutional law, the constitution gives states sole authority to determine their own voting requirements. Presumably that would including the casting of electoral votes.

The freeloaders vote is concentrated in large cities. The vote in large cities determines state-wide election results (as we see in trapping laws). Consider Arizona/Phoenix, Colorado/Denver as examples.

So yes, the electoral college can be subverted by states surrendering the electoral votes to the national popular vote, a popular vote which they themselves largely control. That way they swallow up the voting power of lower populated states, in defiance of the constitution, thus giving freeloaders control of the country. Then politicians that campaign in lower populated states, or advocate fiscal responsibility, will be wasting their time and financial resources, fighting a losing battle.

You have got to be a birdbrain.No,they can't.
The dems buy votes, and a majority are on the free stuff gravy train.
And it is soon complete, free food, free housing, free healthcare, free college, free phones, soon free money for a living wage.
No body can compete with that.
No freedom, you are then a servant of the government.
One party rule while the free stuff last.
lol

Who's the birdbrain here? If republicans don't have ideas that people like, then why should they win elections? I think the birdbrain is the person that thinks republicans can't come up with good ideas and policies, but they should win elections anyways. The birdbrain is the person that thinks that the candidate that fewer people voted for is the person that should win the election. Republicans need to return to their roots of freedom and small government, and educate the populace as to why that's what our country needs. If they can't do that, they don't deserve to win elections.

Educating a populace that is getting free stuff from this day to forever is impossible.

I don't know who you are calling birdbrain. Calling names is a smoke screen at best.

Then I guess the republicans should just give up? Or maybe we should just have a republican-run dictatorship?

PSB1011 called me a birdbrain because I asked if republicans could win over a majority of the population with their ideas. I was using birdbrain back to show the silliness of name calling. I agree it's a smokescreen for not being able to answer the question, or knowing the answer and not liking what that answer is.

And then I just accidentally quoted myself. I'm on a roll I guess

I'm going to have to go with you being the birdbrain. Conservatives have always had the same message. Work hard, take care of yourself and your family. Be financially responsible. Don't rely on government to protect you or provide for you. That message hasn't changed.

What has changed is the way the populace views that message. It is now laughed at and ridiculed in favor of dependence on government handouts.

i think you know that and are just looking for an argument.

Seeing what we see today, the idea of only the gentry class having a vote begins to make more sense.

Preferable to a Progressive dictator.

40 % of the US is getting some kind of Gov. program, 17% of the working population work for the government. I believe these would be two different population segments. Dems want more programs and more Gov. While Republicans want more self reliance and smaller Gov. so why would anyone vote for less free stuff if your already getting it.

I'm well aware of what the parties messages are. I'm aware that the populace has become more liberal. So what's you solution lugnut? Should republicans work harder at educating people? Should we just let the person with the least votes win? Should republicans just give up? Instead of name calling and telling me that the republican's message isn't popular, which we're all aware of, how about we try to think of some solutions to the problem? Got any ideas?

Unless we can somehow take back education and the news media, we are doomed.

They are like petulant children or someone who says a coin toss is good and then looses and says '2 out of three'. They thought they had it in the bag in 2016 just like the progressive brits thought they had it in the bag on the Brexit vote. Now both groups are trying to change the rules/outcomes. This was set up by the founders the way it is for a good reason, they did not want a democracy they wanted a republic of laws.....but that has been twisted and now most people this we have a democracy. I won't get into this discussion because I find anything that changes the way the founders set up this nation is unacceptable and not debatable.....you want to live in a democracy go and move to one..

The Tipping Point Is Coming......make your decision now.

Here is a good simple e-z to understand video:

No taxes without representation, no representation without taxes.

You tell us goose, what would get you to vote for a republican?

Fixed it for ya!

For starters, quit getting involved in foreign conflicts that don't directly involve us, quit giving subsidies to any company, if you're going to do stuff you promised, work on it while you have the majority in both houses; don't wait until you lose one of the houses of congress, stay out of people's bedroom (gay marriage), don't allow the government to kill it's citizens (death penalty), don't try to tell people what they can and can't put in their body (marijuana), don't cheat and then lie about it, and don't ban gun stuff and then claim to be pro-2A. That's a good starter list. To be clear, both parties struggle with some of the stuff I listed. Do you think the 2020 republican candidate will fit the bill?

It's not enough to tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy, you've got to be able to tell me why I should vote for your guy. Democrats struggled with that in 2016, their big message was "hey, at least we're not trump". I see that a lot on here when Trump gets called out for doing things I don't like. I essentially get told "hey, at least he's not Hillary". If the republican message in 2020 is "Hey, at least we're not the democrat", that's not gonna do it for me.

We all know those terms are synonymous...except maybe loosegoose.

I'm gonna start to fly my other flag.

That sounds more like an anti-Trump rant than any type of solution.

I'm pretty sure I heard most of those points on MSNBC this morning.

We all know those terms are synonymous...except maybe loosegoose. grin

You're sorely confused, lugnut I'm well aware of indoctrination on public schools, that's why I homeschool my five kids. Did you send your kids to public indoctrination centers, or did you educate them yourself?

I'm convinced that if we sent kids to school at 6 months of age, within a generation society would be convinced that kids couldn't learn to walk unless they learned it at public school.

Not too concerned with what he thinks he knows.

You didn't describe a difference between any dem or rep that has run in the last century. They both do that. And don't give me some third party crap, that's not even in the wishful thinking category.

Lugnut, I've yet to see any solutions from you....At least I gave some ideas.

You didn't describe a difference between any dem or rep that has run in the last century.

I know....so why would I vote for either of them?

Marty where'd your kids get educated?

Kansas.

Then stop complaining if your not going to help.

Our biased media is the fault of the listeners and the viewers. Far to many Americans will only watch news if it is presented with a lean to the side they favor. Most people don't want real news. They want affirmation. And the programming that most accept as news if nothing more than opinion and commentary.

I think we have far more to worry about from a president's claim that some press is an enemy of people than the biased news itself.

I voted for trump and like some of what he has done, but thank God we have the constitution to protect us from what he would do to some to of our rights if he could.

So public school, then, right?

I'm not complaining. In fact, I'm the only one who's offered any sort of idea as to what republicans can do to get more votes. You got any ideas, hippie? I'd love to hear them.

My sons educational status is none of your business. I answered your question out of courtesy because I am one very courteous sob. But that's all you get.

When you give the people what they want, there is no solution.And they want everything for free.(the majority)
I we can get 4 more years of Trump,and a few more congressmen, just might hold it off for a little while.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
As far as birdbrain, good grief, have to get a go fund me site to pay for counseling.
Now pinhead, you can call me names, it will make me smile.

If someone needs to describe to anyone what the difference between djt and hrc is the person looking for the info is beyond help.

Nope, too many younger kids weren't brought up right and can't accept that no one party is perfect so they defeat their own ideals by throwing a tantrum by throwing their vote away. Throw them in with the pure idiots wanting socialism and all the free things and the ones who have been the only ones defending our freedoms are where we are now. The minority.

Both of the groups you mention are a threat to this nation.

Poopyhead

My sons educational status is none of your business. I answered your question out of courtesy because I am one very courteous sob. But that's all you get.

I think it's safe to assume then that it was public school, and you don't want to answer that. I understand.

Just so I make sure I understand.....All you guys sent or are sending your kids to public school to be indoctrinated, and I'm homeschooling my kids because I don't like the education I received and don't want my kids to be educated, but I'm the one who's confused? I think there's something backwards about that.....

Public school may be a good alternative to be home schooled by you. Your views are pretty out there and your statements are not well thought thru. Personally, I think your a very confused individual.

Please figure out how to quote someone correctly or go to any public school kid and ask for help with that matter.

I do too Marty.

X 3

This forum won't let me quote more than 2 quotes deep, so I just copy and paste. Perhaps you can educate me as to how to quote three levels deep, and I'll do it your way.

Just so we're clear, nobody is going to offer any sugestions as to how the republicans can win over more voters? We're just going to declare it can't be done and accept defeat?

Like I said, learn or go ask for help. The way you do it is very confusing to everyone and your actually using someone else's words without giving proper acknowledgement of that. It is pretty simple.....for most people.

No we are going to let those dems rip on each other and they will do all the work to get 4 more years of
WINNING

Cut off all safety nets, unemployment, welfare, snap, Medicaid , disability. That should get some republicans elected, I mean after all if you want the Gov. out of some stuff, they should get out of all of it.

Who is we?

If your not voting red how are you part of we?

How are you accepting defeat or being defeated?

Your views are what has defeated you, your wanting some type of 'my way' utopia not unlike what cotex wants but just with different rules. It may be important to accept the reality of the situation at hand and make the best of it which is possible under the circumstances.....people like you cannot grasp that concept.

Anyway, my work is done here. Ya'll have fun.

Marty, don't be so upset By we, I mean we who are discussing this subject here on Trapperman. My use of "we" had nothing to do with how anyone votes.

I agree completely. Those are good suggestions. They'd create chaos for a while, but people would quickly become more accepting of ideas that require personal responsibility in order to get ahead.

Nothing you do or say could get me upset, lg. I know what you are and accept that you will probably never change.

If we amend the constitution again I would get behind a ban on political parties.

While we're at it repeal the 17th and amend the 14th.

That would take care of some problems.But not all.

That's fine. But let's also go back to the old ways. Need to be a property owner to have the right to vote. That would take care of the big city turds.

In a perfect world, one could sleep at night without worrying about either one of them trying to undermine traditional American values. Unfortunately, that is impossible to do in todays world.

"You can't fix stupid".....Learn it, love it, live it.

If BuckNe was still here this thread would have been over days ago.

The welfare state runs a lot deeper than those things.

I've been advocating that for forty years. Meanwhile things have gotten nothing but worse. Good luck getting people off their recliners.

Totally agree with what you say except for the fact you CANT know what they stand for?? they all lie through their teeth short of Trump himself, he actually does what he says he is going to do. The rest of them are worthless, just know a democrat is always gonna go after your guns no matter what they say. I think the problem is even voting republican you taking a chance as alot of them are RINOS - or a better term would be snake in the grass.

They are gonna say whatever they think the audience in front of them wants to hear.

Rand Paul is a good one too, but he wants to fight ever little fight, wish he had a chance at Pres though. Trey Gowdy sad he is gone.

J

Trey Gowdy was awesome. I'd vote for him any day of the week.

Better not explain to the republicans how they are on the gravy train.

No doubt he would have been good, if he had the stomach for it.