What do these anti-Trump protesters want?

[RavenSky]

Except that is not what anyone is suggesting

That is exactly what the petition is asking... other than my "what if" about Florida.

No, it really isn't.

As I said: Trump didn't win the popular vote

 

[skepticalbip]

That is exactly what the petition is asking... other than my "what if" about Florida.

No, it really isn't.

As I said: Trump didn't win the popular vote

Yes you did and I explained why that is irrelevant.

Neither of the candidates got a majority of the votes and even that is irrelevant

The US does not elect presidents by national popular vote. Do I really need to explain how the electoral college is set up by law.

You are wanting to post-facto change the law to favor your chosen candidate. This is like having your sport team lose then after the game changing the rules to the team wearing the blue jerseys get an additional 12 points.

 

[ZiprHead]

My brother suggested starting a GoFundMe to pay the fines of faithless electors.

 

[funinspace]

I wonder how the right wing would react to the election of Clinton as President by a slim electoral college win, and a popular vote loss, after campaigning to ban hand guns and confiscate all existing ones; along with declaring that she would demand homosexual rights even within private organizations/churches. Yeah, I’m sure they would remain calm…with no worries as she should be taken seriously, but not literally.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I wonder how the right wing would react to the election of Clinton as President by a slim electoral college win, and a popular vote loss, after campaigning to ban hand guns and confiscate all existing ones; along with declaring that she would demand homosexual rights even within private organizations/churches. Yeah, I’m sure they would remain calm…with no worries as she should be taken seriously, but not literally.

We already know, from Donald Trump's tweets in 2012. Furthermore, we have heard from the Right phrases like "pitchforks and torches" and "second amendment solutions".

 

[Trausti]

Shouldn't the Wisconsin electors respect the vote of the people in Wisconsin? Why should voters in California get to chose Wisconsin electors?

Why should one state get more electors per capita than other states? Maybe the number of electors should be proportional to the population.

That's the great compromise. Without that, little states would never have joined a union with bigger states.

 

[Valjean]

We want our country back!

The conservative house and senate talk a good game -- fiscal responsibility, freedom, banking deregulation, free trade and trickle-down wealth -- but their policies actually serve only the wealthy, and have effectively rolled back all the New Deal checks and balances and social policies of the post war years that created the greatness Trump's been talking of reclaiming.

 

[AdamWho]

Well we haven't even see his birth certificate yet....

 

[Trausti]

That is exactly what the petition is asking... other than my "what if" about Florida.

No, it really isn't.

As I said: Trump didn't win the popular vote

In 2004, Bush won the national popular vote by nearly 2M votes. Though Kerry conceded, the left vented that Ohio was stolen. Bush won Ohio by about 120K votes. Nonetheless, the left contrived a theory that in Ohio there was voter suppression, voting machines were rigged, blah, blah, blah. Had Kerry secured Ohio, he would have overtaken Bush in the electoral college. That is, he would have won the election without the national popular vote. This hypothetical outcome did not seem to bother the lefties. Bush was Hitler after all (before 2008 Hitler, 2012 Hitler, and the present literally Hitler). If you doubt, just search for "2004 election kerry ohio," or some so variant. The current position of (some) on the left against Trump is assploding hypocrisy.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why should one state get more electors per capita than other states? Maybe the number of electors should be proportional to the population.

That's the great compromise. Without that, little states would never have joined a union with bigger states.

Yes. That's right. What most people seem to be forgetting (or didn't learn in the first place) is that this country is actually a federation of states.

Whether it should remain so, given the wide disparity of values that the different states seem to have, is a different question.

 

[dismal]

No, it really isn't.

As I said: Trump didn't win the popular vote

In 2004, Bush won the national popular vote by nearly 2M votes. Though Kerry conceded, the left vented that Ohio was stolen. Bush won Ohio by about 120K votes. Nonetheless, the left contrived a theory that in Ohio there was voter suppression, voting machines were rigged, blah, blah, blah. Had Kerry secured Ohio, he would have overtaken Bush in the electoral college. That is, he would have won the election without the national popular vote. This hypothetical outcome did not seem to bother the lefties. Bush was Hitler after all (before 2008 Hitler, 2012 Hitler, and the present literally Hitler). If you doubt, just search for "2004 election kerry ohio," or some so variant. The current position of (some) on the left against Trump is assploding hypocrisy.

Hypocrites?

I can tell just how much the Democrats love and respect the sanctity of the popular vote by the way they organize their own primaries.

Just ask the super-delegates. They'll tell you.

 

[LordKiran]

That's the great compromise. Without that, little states would never have joined a union with bigger states.

Yes. That's right. What most people seem to be forgetting (or didn't learn in the first place) is that this country is actually a federation of states.

Whether it should remain so, given the wide disparity of values that the different states seem to have, is a different question.

The union itself is largely just a formality, ever since the civil war set the precedent that the federal government can enforce reunification.

 

[dismal]

Yes. That's right. What most people seem to be forgetting (or didn't learn in the first place) is that this country is actually a federation of states.

Whether it should remain so, given the wide disparity of values that the different states seem to have, is a different question.

The union itself is largely just a formality, ever since the civil war set the precedent that the federal government can enforce reunification.

And you feel that somehow made the words in the Constitution change?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why should one state get more electors per capita than other states? Maybe the number of electors should be proportional to the population.

That's the great compromise. Without that, little states would never have joined a union with bigger states.

The Great Compromise was about the two house Legislature, not the Electoral College.

Low populated states are over represented in the Electoral College. It is time for a popular vote winner. 2 of the last 5 elections went to the person that didn't have the popular vote victory.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's the great compromise. Without that, little states would never have joined a union with bigger states.

The Great Compromise was about the two house Legislature, not the Electoral College.

Low populated states are over represented in the Electoral College. It is time for a popular vote winner. 2 of the last 5 elections went to the person that didn't have the popular vote victory.

Eliminating the Electoral College is only the latest echo chamber talking point issued by the DNC. Any Democrat on any talk show rants the same line even if the question had nothing to do with voting. There is no thought involved.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's the great compromise. Without that, little states would never have joined a union with bigger states.

The Great Compromise was about the two house Legislature, not the Electoral College.

Low populated states are over represented in the Electoral College. It is time for a popular vote winner. 2 of the last 5 elections went to the person that didn't have the popular vote victory.

Then increase the number of Representatives, thereby increasing the number of electors, flattening out the ratio of electors per population.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What about a constitutional amendment where all the states split their electoral votes proportionally? If a state has 19 votes and the GOP wins 51-49%, they get 10 and the Dems get 9. If a third party gets 10% of the vote, they'd get 2.

That way, you don't get the bullshit like GOP votes in California don't matter and Dem votes in Alabama don't matter and there's only a handful of states that the candidates actually bother with come election time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Great Compromise was about the two house Legislature, not the Electoral College.

Low populated states are over represented in the Electoral College. It is time for a popular vote winner. 2 of the last 5 elections went to the person that didn't have the popular vote victory.

Eliminating the Electoral College is only the latest echo chamber talking point issued by the DNC. Any Democrat on any talk show rants the same line even if the question had nothing to do with voting. There is no thought involved.

I didn't say we needed to do it in '00, but now this is the second election in 5 elections where this has happened. It is time to get rid of it. It doesn't fulfill the purpose it was originally designed to do and it is interfering with a popularly voted for candidate. We can't repeal the appendix, but we can amend the Constitution.

 

[skepticalbip]

Eliminating the Electoral College is only the latest echo chamber talking point issued by the DNC. Any Democrat on any talk show rants the same line even if the question had nothing to do with voting. There is no thought involved.

I didn't say we needed to do it in '00, but now this is the second election in 5 elections where this has happened. It is time to get rid of it. It doesn't fulfill the purpose it was originally designed to do and it is interfering with a popularly voted for candidate. We can't repeal the appendix, but we can amend the Constitution.

It does exactly fulfill the purpose it was designed to do. The Democrats just now disagree with the original purpose. A possible compromise would be to increase the size of the House.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I didn't say we needed to do it in '00, but now this is the second election in 5 elections where this has happened. It is time to get rid of it. It doesn't fulfill the purpose it was originally designed to do and it is interfering with a popularly voted for candidate. We can't repeal the appendix, but we can amend the Constitution.

It does exactly fulfill the purpose it was designed to do.

How so?

The Democrats just now disagree with the original purpose.

The original purpose was to keep people from electing someone that would have been counter to America's best interests in any sort of way. Trump is the closest we've come to someone that shouldn't be a President. The EC isn't going to act, mainly because the EC is partisan. If not Trump, who does the EC step in front of?

A possible compromise would be to increase the size of the House.

The House isn't the problem. The Senate isn't the problem. It is combining the two numbers for the electoral college that is.