Don't you want to punch them right in their wattle?
Democrat politicians make me puke
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Don't you want to punch them right in their wattle?
When they were proposing the idea in the Federalist Papers - the premise was that without it, one or two states would always pick the President. Actually mainly Virginia because it was the most populous. The idea was that states would tend to just vote for their own guy. The Electoral College created one thing - a way to find a candidate who had wide support across the country.
And we’ve seen this - California votes VERY LOPSIDEDLY for Democrats - when the “popular” vote comes in, we get this wave of votes where greater than two thirds is for Democrats.
So Trump did something this cycle I’ve wanted to see Republicans do for years - campaign heavily in blue states. If I’m not mistaken, he gained in every blue state and came close to flipping New Jersey.
Eliminating the Electoral College in favor of the “popular vote” would just change the way campaigns are run. Democrats think if they do that, they’ll always win. Nope. It suddenly makes every Republican vote in a blue state more likely to make a difference. It won’t secure the White House for Democrats forever - but it will mean no one will bother campaigning in less populated states.
Which is what the Electoral College in essence was intended to prevent.
And we’ve seen this - California votes VERY LOPSIDEDLY for Democrats - when the “popular” vote comes in, we get this wave of votes where greater than two thirds is for Democrats.
So Trump did something this cycle I’ve wanted to see Republicans do for years - campaign heavily in blue states. If I’m not mistaken, he gained in every blue state and came close to flipping New Jersey.
Eliminating the Electoral College in favor of the “popular vote” would just change the way campaigns are run. Democrats think if they do that, they’ll always win. Nope. It suddenly makes every Republican vote in a blue state more likely to make a difference. It won’t secure the White House for Democrats forever - but it will mean no one will bother campaigning in less populated states.
Which is what the Electoral College in essence was intended to prevent.
Some of the tards rah-rahing for this on social media are just.....ugh. So ignorant it's infuriating. How can someone be so obtuse they don't understand the how and why of the electoral college? IMO it doesn't go far enough and if it were up to me we'd abolish winner-take-all. THAT disenfranchises people.
blacklabman
Well-Known Member
Isn't the electoral college specified in the Constitution? If so, an amendment would be required. I can't see the lower electoral number states ratifying it. Takes two thirds for approval.
Of course - and past observation shows, passing amendments to the Constitution historically takes a huge amount of support to get any traction.
If it's popular, it gets done quickly - if not, it languishes.
That - and I am not a Constitutional scholar but - this involves actually changing the Constitution rather than what most of the amendments actually DO - most amendments restrict or define government or expand and protect rights, but I can only think of one that actually changes it - and that's the 17th amendment, which changes how Senators are selected.
It's just rabble rousing and Democrats have no shortage of ignorant rabble. Works every time. Ugh, hate them
lol
Isn't MD already signed onto the Popular Vote movement?
Clem72
Well-Known Member
I was always told since "electors" are identified in the constitution that the only way to remove the EC would be a constitutional amendment. Makes sense.
As for California, it's lopsided but not "greater than two thirds", it was 58% for the Democrat (Harris) not > 66%.
How about the Republicans offer up an amendment of their own?
As each state is allocated two electoral votes based on "winner takes all", all remaining electors will be determined by the will of the people and based on votes received by each Congressional district.
As each state is allocated two electoral votes based on "winner takes all", all remaining electors will be determined by the will of the people and based on votes received by each Congressional district.
You know, you'r right - I went to my favorite site on election data -
and it only shows an average of about 60% towards Democrat. That's about typical blue state percent over the years - New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington.
But that site showed something else we've all seen - ALMOST every blue state - got redder. Washington, Oregon and Colorado did not, The rest, did.
I don't know if it means as much as it looks - Harris was a TERRIBLE candidate, and Demorats are all declaring how the Emperor really has no clothes - now that they lost, and insisting otherwise just looks stupid. I'm amused at HOW FAST they're dumping Kamala, while two months ago, it was all about "joy". My guess is also, we've seen the last of Walz.
I TEND to ignore 2020 overall as election trends go - but I can't help but make the comparison that, across the country, almost every state got redder, including blue ones.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
But eliminating the Electoral College won't change the outcome - it will change how people campaign. Now, discouraged voters in party dominated states actually CAN influence the national election - so Republicans may campaign in very blue areas, and Democrats in heavily red ones, but probably mostly major urban areas.
I think also, Trump has changed the Republican Party to what the Democrat Party USED to be - the working class party. A united working class voting across racial lines will always dominate, overall.
Two-thirds to pass the amendment and three-fourths of the states to ratify it.
Probably would result in WORSE gerrymandering.
See, that's the way it should be. THAT is the democracy and voice of the people Democrats keep saying they want but all they do is finagle ways to silence opposition.
That sht needs to stop too. Districts should be drawn logically, not politically.
Maybe, maybe not as there are already two states that do it this way.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
I still want to know what happened with the almost 10 MILLION vote difference between the Dem candidate in 2020 and 2024.
There was a crackdown on ballot harvesting.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Just wondering why the question isn't being asked. Why no one is saying "What happened to 1 out of every 8 voters since the last election?" Seems like a rather high percentage of voters to just 'drop out' and not vote. Investigation??
Part of me thinks this election may have been a one-off. The Dems were in complete disarray and Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. I won't really believe blue states are becoming redder until after the 2026 and 2028 elections.