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.