Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses
Published January 19, 2013
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ectoral-college-votes-after-presidential.html
Clinton on pace to win popular vote, despite losing election
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses
Published January 19, 2013
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ectoral-college-votes-after-presidential.html
Proposals to proportional divide the electoral college votes in a state have been put forward for over 200 years -- from all parties. Some states already do this.
If you take out voter fraud and counties that were rigging their numbers, I think you would find the majority of people actually voted for Trump. I remember back in 2012 when there were a few counties in OH where Obama got more votes than there were registered voters. Wood county had 106k votes for Obama out of a total of 98k registered voters.
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/good-news-obama-won-county-in-ohio-with.html
I'm 100% sure Hillary rigged this election to show she got more votes than she did. She just didn't rig it enough this year to win.
Uh huh, you betcha.
Even though my candidate won, I'm all for splitting up the EC. Living in CA, I would welcome this with open arms. Tired of 55 EV's going to democrats every election. We have more registered republicans in CA than the total population of more than half the states.
Oh yes they do.
They control 2 out 3 branches of govt and that will soon be 3 out of 3.
The electoral college actually favors democrats, even though they are whining about it now in typical sore loser fashion.
The reason is simple. States are allotted congressmen, and hence presidential electors, based on their total population, not legal population. States with large numbers of illegal aliens, like California, get more than they deserve. Trump carried some of them, but overall they favor democrats by a substantial margin. Plus, that's only half the problem. There is a fixed number of congressmen, so rewarding states with large numbers of illegals penalizes states with smaller numbers of them by depriving them of their rightful share of congressmen and electoral votes. Trump and republicans historically are stronger in those states.
The solution is pretty obvious. Only count legal residents. That would give states an incentive to flush them out and get rid of them, so they don't have to shell out welfare, etc for them and not get reimbursed by the federal government. The current system encourages the whole madness of sanctuary cities, etc.
The reason is simple. States are allotted congressmen, and hence presidential electors, based on their total population, not legal population. States with large numbers of illegal aliens, like California, get more than they deserve. Trump carried some of them, but overall they favor democrats by a substantial margin. Plus, that's only half the problem. There is a fixed number of congressmen, so rewarding states with large numbers of illegals penalizes states with smaller numbers of them by depriving them of their rightful share of congressmen and electoral votes. Trump and republicans historically are stronger in those states.
The solution is pretty obvious. Only count legal residents. That would give states an incentive to flush them out and get rid of them, so they don't have to shell out welfare, etc for them and not get reimbursed by the federal government. The current system encourages the whole madness of sanctuary cities, etc.
That's not a mandate, it's simply control.
In situations like these I like to quote 2 democrat icons...
--
I won; you lost. Deal with it.
That's a paraphrase -- obviously. Here's what Obama actually said:
"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."
"Go out there and win an election." That's about as direct as you will ever hear a politician be about how he feels about his opposition and how they are conducting themselves. (It's not the first time Obama has used the "I won" construct. Remember the health-care summit in early 2010 when Obama told Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): "The election is over.")
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dent-obama-to-republicans-i-won-deal-with-it/
--
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction.
--
I won; you lost. Deal with it.
That's a paraphrase -- obviously. Here's what Obama actually said:
"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."
"Go out there and win an election." That's about as direct as you will ever hear a politician be about how he feels about his opposition and how they are conducting themselves. (It's not the first time Obama has used the "I won" construct. Remember the health-care summit in early 2010 when Obama told Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): "The election is over.")
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dent-obama-to-republicans-i-won-deal-with-it/
--
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction.