Hillary claims Gabbard is a Russian Asset; Jill Stein moves to top of Arkancide List

[deljzc]

I will fight in a civil war over the electoral college. I think it's that important.

 

[SojournerSteel]

Yeah I hate the electoral college. As a republican if I lived in a place like California there is no point in voting. At this point, there is no chance in hell a republican will win that state so you may as well write in peewee herman. With the popular vote then at least every vote truly counts. I realize this would have made Clinton president in 2016 which would have been terrible, but sooner or later it will back fire on republicans. Some states just carry too much weight and lean heavily one way or the other. The election is basically determined by the same 10 states or so , PA, OH, FL, Mich, Wisconsin etc etc.....To me all that shows is the population of those states are split. It shouldnt matter where you live a single vote should make a difference.. With the electoral college it is technically possible for a person to win the election with less than 25% of the popular vote. Obviously this is extremely unlikely to happen, but points out the absurdity of the electoral college.

As for Gabbard I cant think of anything totally radical that she has said compared to the others (including Trump). I like that she was a vet, she fights back when attacked, she is well spoken, and I just like her demeanor in general. I believe she is also the most moderate besides Biden. There is no way she will get the dem nomination though and Warren or Sanders wont pick her for VP. She could really F things up for the dems if she ran as independent.

The country shouldn't have to contend with LA and NYC negating the rest of the country's vote, either. It's astounding the look at the map and breakdown of 2016 election results by US counties. I'd say the Founders knew what they were doing. Like Trump said, you campaign differently with the electoral college as the goal and Hillary was too lazy and stupid to realize this in not going to Wisconsin.

It would be like the butthurt Tomlin Steelers complaining about winning the yardage battle against the Pats between the 20s and losing in the red zone and situational football where the money is made.

 

[wig]

The above is true. If there were no electoral college, there would be no need whatsoever to hold elections at all. You'd merely need to ask CA and NY who they are appointing as the next president.

Ya. The population discrepancy is THAT huge.

 

[Steeltime]

If they want to use the electoral college then they should get rid of the winner take all idea. There are 1 of 2 ways i would support. If a state is worth 100 points and 60% voted for one and 40% voted for another then give 60 points to 1 and 40 to the other. Every vote would matter, and more populated areas would still carry more weight. Second system i would support would give the winner of the state a "bonus" based on their total "points" . So in my example the winning party would get 60 points + 10 for the outright

I will, for at least the fourth time on this forum, point out that any voting systems, yours included, that places such tremendous emphasis on the popular vote is never going to work. Ever.

First, your point system with percentages and bonuses most certainly constitutes a form of popular vote. Otherwise, who the @#$% cares about the percentages?

Second, if any popular-vote based system is put into action, how long do you think the inevitable and considerable recounts would last? Jesus, re-counts in two @#$%ing counties in Florida took months and required Supreme Court intervention.

Do you actually believe that a nationwide recount could be completed in less than four months? Who the @#$% is the President in the interim? And as night follows day, and as we see every waking minute with lefties, they would interfere with the recount efforts whenever their outcome was threatened. Riots, blocking streets, attacking people are the norm for just being pissy. Imagine their behavior when a recount threatened their candidate, i.e., Soros' candidate.

Nope. Electoral system - makes votes count, even in small counties and states. Makes a recount possible.

 

[jitter77]

If you add up all the votes in the 10 largest states from 2016 it is only about half the total votes. So to say that 2 or 3 cities would determine the president is nonsense. Of course a recount would be terrible, but is that better than ignoring millions of votes? People in rural California who vote republican may win their county or whatever, but there is no way they will win the state. That video makes it seem like there ate a ton of swing states, but that is not really the case. It gave an example of California from 1988.... That was 30yrs ago...You could have 49.99999% of people in a state vote one way and 50.000000001% vote the other way and with the winner take all system the 49% people just get left out. I saw a list of states that neither Trump or Clinton visited and it was bigger than i would have expected. Like i said with the college you could theoretically win with 25% of the popular vote.

 

[Steeltime]

If you add up all the votes in the 10 largest states from 2016 it is only about half the total votes. So to say that 2 or 3 cities would determine the president is nonsense.

Who the hell said that? I sure didn't. You need to re-read what I wrote, because your stating that I said that voting in 2-3 cities would turn an election is just not accurate. I did point out, however, that the recount in just two freaking counties in Florida in 2000 took many, many, many months and went on until the Supreme Court finally said, "Enough."

Of course a recount would be terrible, but is that better than ignoring millions of votes?

We ignore the votes of tens of millions every election. Seriously, if the vile, contemptible, disgusting, bloated, lying felon known as the Hildabeast were somehow put into office, wouldn't we be ignoring 64 million votes for Trump?

The electoral college does not ignore a single vote; it just makes the election manageable. Oh, and it is the way the Constitution says we elect the Executive branch.

People in rural California who vote republican may win their county or whatever, but there is no way they will win the state.

Do you know what changed between 1988, when the state voted for George H.W. Bush over Dukakis, and 1990, when the state elected Pete Wilson by more than 2 million more votes than Feinstein, and now? Illegal immigration. The (D)ims cheated.

So if California wants to continue running taxpayers out of state (me included), and turning off power to millions, and having their cities covered in needles and feces, I say **** 'em. Not our problem. That state will of course hit bottom and I believe lead to a tremendous backlash against the lying, stealing, thieving criminals known as the (D)ims.

Accompanied by some beatings would be nice.

People in rural California who vote republican may win their county or whatever, but there is no way they will win the state. That video makes it seem like there ate a ton of swing states, but that is not really the case. It gave an example of California from 1988.... That was 30yrs ago...You could have 49.99999% of people in a state vote one way and 50.000000001% vote the other way and with the winner take all system the 49% people just get left out.

Great. Close race, so I guess we should not have a winner. Just declare a tie and make sure everybody gets a ribbon.

**** happens. Races are close sometimes. But every race needs a winner.

I saw a list of states that neither Trump or Clinton visited and it was bigger than i would have expected. Like i said with the college you could theoretically win with 25% of the popular vote.

First off, the candidates visit damn near every state, during either the primaries, the general election, or both. Your concern about candidates ignoring areas of the United States is certainly inconsistent with your desire for a much heavier role in the popular vote.

Seriously, do you believe a candidate would visit New Mexico, or Nevada, or New Hampshire, or Colorado if the popular vote held sway? Of course not. The candidates would instead visit (in this order) California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, and North Carolina. That's more than 50% of the nation's population.

And they would not visit small counties or farms or county fairs - they would visit Los Angeles, and Chicago, and Philadelphia, and Atlanta, and NYC, etc. Why in God's name give a flying @#$% about Dayton, Ohio, Keene, Texas, Oskaloosa, Iowa, Sioux City, Iowa, Springfield, Illinois, Sparks, Nevada, Waterville Valley, New Hampshire, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, Mesa, Arizona, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Claremont, New Hampshire, Burlington, Vermont, Warren, Michigan, Appleton, Wisconsin, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Kenansville, North Carolina, Waukesha, Wisconsin, Ambridge, Pennsylvania, Bangor, Maine, Green Bay, Wisconsin, or Oklahoma at all?

What, those COMBINED 3.5 million votes matter? Puh-leeze. Go to Miami a second time, twice more to Los Angeles, and you have hit 18 million voters. Small cities and counties would not matter a whit under your system.

Do you also have a problem with the bicameral legislature, where population does not matter in the Senate?? That should rub you the wrong way much more than the electoral college.

Second, nobody has ever won an election with 25% of the vote, not even remotely close. Nowhere in the same stratosphere as reality. You are simply making up a problem that does not exist. "What if Russians walked into Alaska by the millions, and all voted for one candidate to sway the popular vote?" Equally a non-problem.

 

[Steelworth]

The above is true. If there were no electoral college, there would be no need whatsoever to hold elections at all. You'd merely need to ask CA and NY who they are appointing as the next president.

Ya. The population discrepancy is THAT huge.

That, AND the amount of voter fraud that would occur would be unimaginable. Anybody who wants to do away with the Twelth Amendment to the Constitution either needs to do a lot more research on it and understand it, or they're completely okay with ruining this country's voting system and, well, ruining the country.

 

[Steelworth]

Who the hell said that? I sure didn't. You need to re-read what I wrote, because your stating that I said that voting in 2-3 cities would turn an election is just not accurate. I did point out, however, that the recount in just two freaking counties in Florida in 2000 took many, many, many months and went on until the Supreme Court finally said, "Enough."



We ignore the votes of tens of millions every election. Seriously, if the vile, contemptible, disgusting, bloated, lying felon known as the Hildabeast were somehow put into office, wouldn't we be ignoring 64 million votes for Trump?

The electoral college does not ignore a single vote; it just makes the election manageable. Oh, and it is the way the Constitution says we elect the Executive branch.


Do you know what changed between 1988, when the state voted for George H.W. Bush over Dukakis, and 1990, when the state elected Pete Wilson by more than 2 million more votes than Feinstein, and now? Illegal immigration. The (D)ims cheated.

So if California wants to continue running taxpayers out of state (me included), and turning off power to millions, and having their cities covered in needles and feces, I say **** 'em. Not our problem. That state will of course hit bottom and I believe lead to a tremendous backlash against the lying, stealing, thieving criminals known as the (D)ims.

Accompanied by some beatings would be nice.



Great. Close race, so I guess we should not have a winner. Just declare a tie and make sure everybody gets a ribbon.

**** happens. Races are close sometimes. But every race needs a winner.



First off, the candidates visit damn near every state, during either the primaries, the general election, or both. Your concern about candidates ignoring areas of the United States is certainly inconsistent with your desire for a much heavier role in the popular vote.

Seriously, do you believe a candidate would visit New Mexico, or Nevada, or New Hampshire, or Colorado if the popular vote held sway? Of course not. The candidates would instead visit (in this order) California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, and North Carolina. That's more than 50% of the nation's population.

And they would not visit small counties or farms or county fairs - they would visit Los Angeles, and Chicago, and Philadelphia, and Atlanta, and NYC, etc. Why in God's name give a flying @#$% about Dayton, Ohio, Keene, Texas, Oskaloosa, Iowa, Sioux City, Iowa, Springfield, Illinois, Sparks, Nevada, Waterville Valley, New Hampshire, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, Mesa, Arizona, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Claremont, New Hampshire, Burlington, Vermont, Warren, Michigan, Appleton, Wisconsin, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Kenansville, North Carolina, Waukesha, Wisconsin, Ambridge, Pennsylvania, Bangor, Maine, Green Bay, Wisconsin, or Oklahoma at all?

What, those COMBINED 3.5 million votes matter? Puh-leeze. Go to Miami a second time, twice more to Los Angeles, and you have hit 18 million voters. Small cities and counties would not matter a whit under your system.

Do you also have a problem with the bicameral legislature, where population does not matter in the Senate?? That should rub you the wrong way much more than the electoral college.

Second, nobody has ever won an election with 25% of the vote, not even remotely close. Nowhere in the same stratosphere as reality. You are simply making up a problem that does not exist. "What if Russians walked into Alaska by the millions, and all voted for one candidate to sway the popular vote?" Equally a non-problem.

If this won't change your mind on the importance of the Electoral College, good luck to you.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Seriously, do you believe a candidate would visit New Mexico, or Nevada, or New Hampshire, or Colorado if the popular vote held sway? Of course not. The candidates would instead visit (in this order) California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, and North Carolina. That's more than 50% of the nation's population.

That, but also the Republican candidate wouldn't bother visiting CA, NY, IL, and NJ.

 

[Vincent]

That, but also the Republican candidate wouldn't bother visiting CA, NY, IL, and NJ.

Trump needs to rally in those states. There are a lot of red votes to flush out of those @#$%holes.

 

[jitter77]

If this won't change your mind on the importance of the Electoral College, good luck to you.

2/3rds of the 2016 general election campaign events were in 6 states.......
94% of the events were in just 12 states.

Basically 10 or so swing states are identified by the campaigns and those states are hit over and over. If your fine with about 20% of our states deciding an election then that I guess we will agree to disagree. Like I said with the popular vote if you take the 10 most populated states it comes to about 50% of voters. That leaves another 60-70 million votes for the rest of the country. Still a lot of votes out there. With the popular vote your vote is going directly for your candidate it should not matter where you live.

 

[Confluence]

2/3rds of the 2016 general election campaign events were in 6 states.......
94% of the events were in just 12 states.

Basically 10 or so swing states are identified by the campaigns and those states are hit over and over. If your fine with about 20% of our states deciding an election then that I guess we will agree to disagree. Like I said with the popular vote if you take the 10 most populated states it comes to about 50% of voters. That leaves another 60-70 million votes for the rest of the country. Still a lot of votes out there. With the popular vote your vote is going directly for your candidate it should not matter where you live.

it could be that you simply do not understand the Electoral College and that you live in a Republic.

Sent from my SM-N950W using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Steelerfan]

Hit.

 

[Steeltime]

2/3rds of the 2016 general election campaign events were in 6 states....... 94% of the events were in just 12 states.

Basically 10 or so swing states are identified by the campaigns and those states are hit over and over.

Wait, you think that would be LESS likely to happen in a popular vote process? Are you SERIOUS?!?

If we had an election based on popular votes, candidates would simply not go to any states other than Ca, Texas, Florida, NY, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina.

Ten states, with 176 million citizens, or 54% of the population. Further, on visits to those ten states, candidates would go to major urban areas. Why the @#$% go to some small county in Texas with 2,154 citizens when you can simply go back to Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin or El Paso? Why go to freaking Bakersfield, when you can just return to LA, San Diego, SF, Sacramento, or San Jose??

Your approach would basically require candidates to ignore millions of square miles of our nation in the West and center of our nation. Flyover country would be meaningless.

So that part of the country feeds the goddamn nation? So what? Too few votes in Nebraska for anybody to give a ****. Trump visited Altoona, and Erie, and Toledo, and Waukesha, and Manheim, and Prescott Valley.

Finally, wherever you are getting your information is bullshit. Trump visited 20 states - not 12 - during the general election campaign in 2016.

So you really think Trump visits Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Maine, Iowa and Colorado in 2016 with a popular vote approach? Bunk. He would have been more likely to visit Ron Mexico than New Mexico if the popular vote counted.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

2/3rds of the 2016 general election campaign events were in 6 states.......
94% of the events were in just 12 states.

Basically 10 or so swing states are identified by the campaigns and those states are hit over and over. If your fine with about 20% of our states deciding an election then that I guess we will agree to disagree. Like I said with the popular vote if you take the 10 most populated states it comes to about 50% of voters. That leaves another 60-70 million votes for the rest of the country. Still a lot of votes out there. With the popular vote your vote is going directly for your candidate it should not matter where you live.

You are totally incorrect. BUT if you wanted to make a slight change to the process I would be willing to consider doling out the electoral college votes partly winner take all(2 votes) and by congressional district like they do in a few States. That would bring California and NY into play though so Democrats will be against that.

 

[Steeltime]

You are totally incorrect. BUT if you wanted to make a slight change to the process I would be willing to consider doling out the electoral college votes partly winner take all(2 votes) and by congressional district like they do in a few States.

Now THAT would make candidates visit every part of the country. And the electoral map would look something like this:

 

[CharlesDavenport]

The only change I'd like to see is getting rid of the electors and just automatically assigning all the votes to the winner of the state popular vote. Makes no sense to keep those useless electors in the process.

 

[Steeltime]

The only change I'd like to see is getting rid of the electors and just automatically assigning all the votes to the winner of the state popular vote. Makes no sense to keep those useless electors in the process.

Makes a lot of sense when you consider that the electors are rewarded with a free trip to D.C. to cast their votes. In between the hookers and whiskey, I mean.

If it is politics, you can rest assured bribes, hookers and booze are involved.

 

[IndySteel]

Makes a lot of sense when you consider that the electors are rewarded with a free trip to D.C. to cast their votes. In between the hookers and whiskey, I mean.

If it is politics, you can rest assured bribes, hookers and booze are involved.

That's why there's so many Never Trumpers in the R party. They take bribes, kickbacks, payouts, pay-for-play etc... just like the corrupt Dims. They don't want to get exposed.

 

[Troglodyte]

Wait, you think that would be LESS likely to happen in a popular vote process? Are you SERIOUS?!?

If we had an election based on popular votes, candidates would simply not go to any states other than Ca, Texas, Florida, NY, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina.

Ten states, with 176 million citizens, or 54% of the population. Further, on visits to those ten states.

OK, first of all, you just made the point that ten states deciding the election would be worse than six states deciding the election, second of all, you’re terribly misguided in your thinking.

A popular vote would have NOTHING to do with winning states as states would no longer need to be won.

 

[Booted]

If Hillary had won, the dems would have no problem with the EC

 

[Vader]

If Hillary had won, the dems would have no problem with the EC

Before the Gore/ Bush election in 2000 the Dems were worried that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore would win the electoral college. You can go youtube all of them, Clinton included talking about the reasons for the EC and how great of a system it is. If Trump had won the popular vote and Hillary the EC you wouldn't hear a word about changing it from them. Not a peep. It's classic liberal bs.

 

[Steeltime]

OK, first of all, you just made the point that ten states deciding the election would be worse than six states deciding the election, second of all, you’re terribly misguided in your thinking.

A popular vote would have NOTHING to do with winning states as states would no longer need to be won.

Are you pretending to be this stupid?

First, six states did not "decide" the 2016 election. 50 states did. The battleground states included 20 that Trump visited during the general election cycle - not five or six or ten or twelve or seventeen, but TWENTY. Bloated Hillary was too busy blacking out to visit that many, but who gives a ****? She is a drunk, fat, corrupt moron.

Second, genius, while it is true that states would not be won, THE ******* STATES WITH 54% OF THE ******* POPULATION WOULD DOMINATE CAMPAIGNING IN A POPULAR VOTE. Ten states - not 20. Not 12. TEN.

Third, politicians would visit only urban areas in those large states. I know (D)ims, you included, want to spread the success shown in great leftist urban areas like San Fran, Detroit, Los Angeles, and other ****-strewn homeless encampments, but you may be shocked - SHOCKED - to learn that many of us don't live in your man-ban dominated queef cities that feature traffic jams, filth, homelessness, garbage, feces, and ****** roads.

Get it? Re-read what I posted, paying attention to, you know, THE WORDS this time. At this point, I suspect even elfie would understand. If the point is beyond your ken, have a 2nd grader explain it to you.

 

[IndySteel]

Are you pretending to be this stupid?

First, six states did not "decide" the 2016 election. 50 states did.

57, according to Odumba.

And one would think that the morons who live in those highly populated, libtard-run hellholes would at some point open their eyes and proclaim "This **** isn't working." and stop electing Dims.

 

[Steeltime]

Finally, I am quite frankly shocked that Bloated Hillary failed to visit Wisconsin.

I mean, all that cheese and bratwurst. She looks to be back in fighting trim ...