270-268 scenario

[L4Dawg]

How a candidate does in state X or state Y wouldnt matter though. Thats what you and others cant seem to grasp- nobody wins or loses a state if everyone's vote counts equally.

Trump would have received 3.93MM votes from people in California, 6.37MM votes from people in Texas, and 655K votes from people in Mississippi.
Harris would have received and 5.6MM votes from people in California, 4.8MM votes from people in Texas, and 404K votes from people in Mississippi.

It wouldnt matter who got more votes in MS or TX or CA because each vote would count the same. Add the votes up that I listed above and Trump slightly edges out Harris at about the same difference as the actual popular vote results. Wild, right?...I didnt even try to do that- I just picked the largest state for each and added in Mississippi.

It is intended to make it harder for one, or a few, big states to have outsized influence if they DID vote overwhelmingly for one person. The Founding Fathers feared regionalism very much, with good reason as we all know. It could still happen, and is sort of beginning to happen if you look at things closely.

 

[L4Dawg]

As it is now, roughly half of Mississippi has no say in the matter.

They had their say in how Mississippi voted, and it was less than 40%.

 

[Villagedawg]

Wow. You mean they're not allowed to vote ?

I mean that in the actual vote that elects the president, they are not counted. But I think you already knew that. Same goes for the 4 million Trump voters in California.

 

[Villagedawg]

They had their say in how Mississippi voted, and it was less than 40%.

And their opinion is not reflected in how Mississippi will vote in the EC which is the actual election as we know.

 

[85Bears]

But no democrat in CA will even get more than 7% of the popular vote. They’ll get 10% of the electoral vote every time though.

With California’s policy on immigration and voting, there is no limit to what voting numbers they can manufacture. with the voting irregularities of Detroit, Philadelphia, California....abolishing the electoral college does Not sound promising. you aren’t dealing with good faith actors here.

 

[mstateglfr]

It is intended to make it harder for one, or a few, big states to have outsized influence if they DID vote overwhelmingly for one person. The Founding Fathers feared regionalism very much, with good reason as we all know. It could still happen, and is sort of beginning to happen if you look at things closely.

Citation please.
Link writings or whatever that show this.

 

[L4Dawg]

And their opinion is not reflected in how Mississippi will vote in the EC which is the actual election as we know.

They had their say in choosing how Mississippi would vote in the EC. They lost. If you don't like how it turned out, then make a better case next time.

 

[L4Dawg]

Citation please.
Link writings or whatever that show this.

Oh good grief go read a history book. Do your own homework.

 

[thatsbaseball]

I mean that in the actual vote that elects the president, they are not counted. But I think you already knew that. Same goes for the 4 million Trump voters in California.

If this is another lame attempt to justify doing away with the EC you need to go find a crowd that will listen .

 

[mstateglfr]

With California’s policy on immigration and voting, there is no limit to what voting numbers they can manufacture. with the voting irregularities of Detroit, Philadelphia, California....abolishing the electoral college does Not sound promising. you aren’t dealing with good faith actors here.

Your post is just baseless conjecture based on fearmonger claims.

The same voting processes that exist now could exist with direct voting. Each stage could still run elections into their states too, since down ballot races would continue to exist.
... and if you are claiming there is election fraud now, then should yesterday‘s results be trusted?

 

[85Bears]

If this is another lame attempt to justify doing away with the EC you need to go find a crowd that will listen .

“Just trust us” it’s illegal to show voter ID in California “but just trust us”. after they rig the presidential elections then they pack the Supreme Court, one party rule. sounds great.

 

[mstateglfr]

Oh good grief go read a history book. Do your own homework.

Some wanted direct voting.
Some wanted Congress to elect the president because common people would be too dumb and uninformed.
The compromise was the electoral college.

 

[Villagedawg]

If this is another lame attempt to justify doing away with the EC you need to go find a crowd that will listen .

If telling the truth is another lame attempt, ok. But I never said we need to do away with the EC.

 

[Villagedawg]

common people would be too dumb and uninformed.

They were right.

 

[L4Dawg]

Some wanted direct voting.
Some wanted Congress to elect the president because common people would be too dumb and uninformed.
The compromise was the electoral college.

And electoral votes for each state were awarded based on total congressional representation, not direct proportion of population. The big state/little state compromise was very much a part of it.

 

[thatsbaseball]

“Just trust us” it’s illegal to show voter ID in California “but just trust us”. after they rig the presidential elections then they pack the Supreme Court, one party rule. sounds great.

The Dem side of the house voted overwhelmingly against having to prove citizenship to vote. How much more obvious could their intentions be ?

 

[Villagedawg]

They had their say in choosing how Mississippi would vote in the EC. They lost. If you don't like how it turned out, then make a better case next time.

Or I could make a case for changing the system. That's still allowed, right? I've never said do away with the EC. I just think there are a number of better ways to do it. Some preserving the EC. My candidates have won some and lost some over the 30 plus years I've been voting. That's part of it. No problem with that. But the way we elect a president in 2024 is antiquated and it does need adjusting. So does the way we elect almost every office in this country. We give seats to one side or the other in a winner take all which by nature results in a representative body that is not really representative of voters. It results in a false sense of where the population is. I say this for both red and blue voters. I think this is one of the key reasons for peoples' gripes about an unresponsive government. About half the time the government is going to be unresponsive to about half the people. And they will never do anything about it because it may result in more than just red and blue winning elections.

 

[85Bears]

The Dem side of the house voted overwhelmingly against having to prove citizenship to vote. How much more obvious could their intentions be ?

Yes, it’s a really bad argument, it assumes they have pristine intentions and follow the letter of the law. you are dealing with a gangster mentality that only cares about seizing power. That’s the sad truth.

you could make the same silly argument for the first and second amendment, they are old outdated, hate Speech, gun violence etc etc.

must expand the Supreme Court as now there are thirteen districts etc etc

bottom line Founding Fathers put up too many roadblocks to stop tyrannical rule

 

[L4Dawg]

Or I could make a case for changing the system. That's still allowed, right? I've never said do away with the EC. I just think there are a number of better ways to do it. Some preserving the EC. My candidates have won some and lost some over the 30 plus years I've been voting. That's part of it. No problem with that. But the way we elect a president in 2024 is antiquated and it does need adjusting. So does the way we elect almost every office in this country. We give seats to one side or the other in a winner take all which by nature results in a representative body that is not really representative of voters. It results in a false sense of where the population is. I say this for both red and blue voters. I think this is one of the key reasons for peoples' gripes about an unresponsive government. About half the time the government is going to be unresponsive to about half the people. And they will never do anything about it because it may result in more than just red and blue winning elections.

It still helps the little states have a slightly more influence than they would otherwise because their votes go as a block. That was the original compromise, and the dynamics for it are still very much there.

 

[Perd Hapley]

No it would just ensure a monopoly on all three branches of government by the two most populous states.

Explain where the 2 most populous states would get the 47 additional Senators they’d need to be able to do this.

 

[GloryDawg]

And now we got this.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/spe...ed-wind-trump-prosecutions/story?id=115571646