A Trump Supporter's Tale.

[ericberry14]

There should be 100 electoral college votes. Each state should get equal say. All the welfare bums in California shouldn't have a louder voice than hardworking folk in the heart of the country

[Jezter13]

[JdPat04]

Kylie Irving and sone other dumbass liberal Obama/Clinton supprter think the earth is flat. Thanks for trying

[Eye_of_Horus]

There should be 100 electoral college votes. Each state should get equal say. All the welfare bums in California shouldn't have a louder voice than hardworking folk in the heart of the country

Agree 100%.

:2thumbs

[FuckESPNdotCOM]

Do you not understand how the election process works and why this tired argument of "less than 50% of the popular vote" only proves you are a great parrot?

I know how it works. I'm saying the system is flawed. And both major candidates got less that 50% of the popular vote, but Hillary Clinton got more.

Take the 1984 election. Mondale won a paltry 13 EC votes while Reagan won 525 (~2.42% to ~97.58%). The popular vote was 54 million to 38 million (59% to 41%, all figures with rounding). So because of bullshit "winner-take-all" EC logic, it looks like Mondale had next to 0 support when he actually had about 2/5 of the voters.

You're a fucking idiot if you don't see how the EC can misrepresent the popular vote that it's actually tied to. A candidate can win the EC with just over 1/3 of the popular vote. In basically a 2-party race, that means the other major candidate won almost TWICE the amount of votes as the EC winner. That doesn't strike you as stupid? If the popular vote means nothing, which dumbass conservatives seem to think, then why have a vote open to the general public at all?

But I'm sure you'd feel the same way if Hillary won the EC with millions more Americans voting for Trump.

The system is not flawed. This election is resounding proof of why it is necessary.

If we were to allow the system you want? We would never have to vote because New York and California would lead us every year as they have the most populous by far and their sheople vote 80+ % one way. That's the only reason the numbers are as skewed as they are for Shillary.

The repugnicans in that state don't bother coming out to vote and a lot of the democunts don't have to either because they know their state cannot lose that vote. Same with Cali.

Electrical college, though that group is probably not needed anymore in terms of casting their votes for the elected, is needed because we are separate states that are picking a representative for us all and to be the deciding factor for federal umbrella policy. I sure as shit would hate if my voice was completely useless in a election.

This guarantees that we cannot be royally screwed into a monarchy and or into a dictatorship via one of two states.

Get out of the fetal position, remove your lips from your asshole and stop crying because your beloved piece of shit tyrant of a cunt lost an election. Again.

But to get back to the point of total votes? Had all the people in states like Oregon, California, New York, Washington etc felt the need to vote because it would have made a difference? Had Trump gone to those states thinking he could turn some people around? And of we could eliminate the illegal votes? It would have been a landslide in Trumps favor

But! Just as with your whining about how unfair it is your cunt lost? It is unfair that you feel we should be controlled by a few states as opposed to the population of the whole 50.

There should be 100 electoral college votes. Each state should get equal say. All the welfare bums in California shouldn't have a louder voice than hardworking folk in the heart of the country

I'm not crying in the fetal position. I'm just saying you conservitard Trump supporters are fucking dumbasses and breaking up your stupid circle jerk. I don't love Hillary. I don't like OU but I'll root for them against UF every fucking time. Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils. But that's beside the point.

If you only use the popular vote, everyone, regardless of where they live, gets an equal vote. As it stands, a person who lives in a state with more people per electoral vote actually has less of a say than someone with less people per electoral vote (the big issue with EB's quote). You're speaking as if these one or two states hold a majority of the popular votes, and that's just false.

With the popular vote, a person from Wyoming has the same influence as a person from California. Assuming 65+ age range is evenly distributed and voter turnout is similar nationwide, NY + CA add up to a whopping 18.6% of the adults AKA voters. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(a ... california)%2Fadult+population+united+states . That means 81.4% is still up to the rest, and that's even more if less than 100% of NY and CA vote for one candidate. How stupid are you to believe that NY and CA would decide everything?

The EC was good when we couldn't tally votes electronically and politicians had more access and knowledge than the everyman US citizen. It was actually better when it wasn't actually tethered to the popular vote. But that's no longer the case. People get news instantly. People can directly talk with others, including politicians, thousands of miles away from each other. There are millions of people more knowledgeable and qualified for political office than there are in the current White House. It's fucking sad when your country's government mirrors the government of Idiocracy, and the Chief Idiot didn't even receive a plurality of the popular vote.

[bigbluebazooka]

Do you not understand how the election process works and why this tired argument of "less than 50% of the popular vote" only proves you are a great parrot?

I know how it works. I'm saying the system is flawed. And both major candidates got less that 50% of the popular vote, but Hillary Clinton got more.

Take the 1984 election. Mondale won a paltry 13 EC votes while Reagan won 525 (~2.42% to ~97.58%). The popular vote was 54 million to 38 million (59% to 41%, all figures with rounding). So because of bullshit "winner-take-all" EC logic, it looks like Mondale had next to 0 support when he actually had about 2/5 of the voters.

You're a fucking idiot if you don't see how the EC can misrepresent the popular vote that it's actually tied to. A candidate can win the EC with just over 1/3 of the popular vote. In basically a 2-party race, that means the other major candidate won almost TWICE the amount of votes as the EC winner. That doesn't strike you as stupid? If the popular vote means nothing, which dumbass conservatives seem to think, then why have a vote open to the general public at all?

But I'm sure you'd feel the same way if Hillary won the EC with millions more Americans voting for Trump.

The system is not flawed. This election is resounding proof of why it is necessary.

If we were to allow the system you want? We would never have to vote because New York and California would lead us every year as they have the most populous by far and their sheople vote 80+ % one way. That's the only reason the numbers are as skewed as they are for Shillary.

The repugnicans in that state don't bother coming out to vote and a lot of the democunts don't have to either because they know their state cannot lose that vote. Same with Cali.

Electrical college, though that group is probably not needed anymore in terms of casting their votes for the elected, is needed because we are separate states that are picking a representative for us all and to be the deciding factor for federal umbrella policy. I sure as shit would hate if my voice was completely useless in a election.

This guarantees that we cannot be royally screwed into a monarchy and or into a dictatorship via one of two states.

Get out of the fetal position, remove your lips from your asshole and stop crying because your beloved piece of shit tyrant of a cunt lost an election. Again.

But to get back to the point of total votes? Had all the people in states like Oregon, California, New York, Washington etc felt the need to vote because it would have made a difference? Had Trump gone to those states thinking he could turn some people around? And of we could eliminate the illegal votes? It would have been a landslide in Trumps favor

But! Just as with your whining about how unfair it is your cunt lost? It is unfair that you feel we should be controlled by a few states as opposed to the population of the whole 50.

There should be 100 electoral college votes. Each state should get equal say. All the welfare bums in California shouldn't have a louder voice than hardworking folk in the heart of the country

I'm not crying in the fetal position. I'm just saying you conservitard Trump supporters are fucking dumbasses and breaking up your stupid circle jerk. I don't love Hillary. I don't like OU but I'll root for them against UF every fucking time. Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils. But that's beside the point.

If you only use the popular vote, everyone, regardless of where they live, gets an equal vote. As it stands, a person who lives in a state with more people per electoral vote actually has less of a say than someone with less people per electoral vote (the big issue with EB's quote). You're speaking as if these one or two states hold a majority of the popular votes, and that's just false.

With the popular vote, a person from Wyoming has the same influence as a person from California. Assuming 65+ age range is evenly distributed and voter turnout is similar nationwide, NY + CA add up to a whopping 18.6% of the adults AKA voters. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(a ... california)%2Fadult+population+united+states . That means 81.4% is still up to the rest, and that's even more if less than 100% of NY and CA vote for one candidate. How stupid are you to believe that NY and CA would decide everything?

The EC was good when we couldn't tally votes electronically and politicians had more access and knowledge than the everyman US citizen. It was actually better when it wasn't actually tethered to the popular vote. But that's no longer the case. People get news instantly. People can directly talk with others, including politicians, thousands of miles away from each other. There are millions of people more knowledgeable and qualified for political office than there are in the current White House. It's fucking sad when your country's government mirrors the government of Idiocracy, and the Chief Idiot didn't even receive a plurality of the popular vote.

It's clear you hate America and the Constitution. Just move to another country already :wave2

And make me a fucking sammich. :wave2

[FuckESPNdotCOM]

As usual, when a conservitard alternative fact is proven wrong, they resort to one-liner deflections. :yawn

I guess Trump supporters would be stupid enough to think California and New York combined make up a majority of the US population. Wake me up when you tards actually figure out that getting rid of the EC would actually put every voter on equal footing instead of state-based favoritism and skewed voting percentages.

[ericberry14]

No it should just go to the 100 vote proposal I made.

[FSUKW]

I guess Trump supporters would be stupid enough to think California and New York combined make up a majority of the US population.

I don't think they would now, but a change as you suggest would alter the landscape of campaigning. Candidates would spend majority of time in California, NY and Texas. Voters in the rest of the country would probably stop voting. I'm not saying immediately but eventually. JMO

[FuckESPNdotCOM]

I guess Trump supporters would be stupid enough to think California and New York combined make up a majority of the US population.

I don't think they would now, but a change as you suggest would alter the landscape of campaigning. Candidates would spend majority of time in California, NY and Texas. Voters in the rest of the country would probably stop voting. I'm not saying immediately but eventually. JMO

That's one possibility, but I don't think that would change much. I seriously doubt either candidate cares much about states like Idaho even with the EC in place (neither 2016 candidate campaigned there).
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi ... story.html
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi ... story.html

There will always be eligible voters that don't vote. But if you don't want your opinion to count, then why should it? Again, with the popular vote, everyone would have the same political pull regardless of where they lived (I think citizens in Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico should have votes in the elections).

I honestly believe the EC is a big deterrent in voting in heavily skewed states like California or Alabama. A Republican voter is less likely to vote for Trump in California because with the EC that vote may count, but it doesn't matter because California is going to be blue. Those unpopular votes are essentially null and void because of the EC. Same with a Democrat in Alabama. But with the popular vote, it doesn't matter what people in your general vicinity vote; it matters what the majority/plurality of the country vote.

[Muck FcDisney]

Swing states and turnout rates:

Colorado 11
Florida 32
Iowa 5
Michigan 15
Nevada 45
New Hampshire 4
North Carolina 23
Ohio 25
Pennsylvania 34
Virginia 18
Wisconsin 2

Avg = 19.5

Only 3 in the top 10? NC at 23? OH at 25?
FL at 32?!? :crazy


Sadly, the most recent stats I could find were from the 2012 Obamney-Obamney election. 2016 turnout comparison would be interesting, but I'm lazy. :sigh

[FuckESPNdotCOM]

Right-wing idiots/Trump supporters are at it again:

What kind of asshole plays golf while millions lose their homes to a natural disaster?
#MakeAmericaDumbAgain

[Muck FcDisney]

Bumping one of the weakest troll threads in history... 6 months later? Someone is triggered as fuck! :dog

But yeah, these half dozen people are idiots. This (not Katrina) happened last August, not 2005. If these people lose any more brain cells, they'll be forced to lead the democratic party.