Electoral College

[Insp4]

I would prefer that the electoral votes be split to better represent the true voice of the people. I wouldn't even object to rounding down for the loser. For example...Trump won all 6 of the Kansas electoral votes, but HIllary won 37% of the votes. If we are going to keep the electoral college, then Hillary would have got 2 of the electoral votes and Trump would get 4 of the popular vote. He still "wins" the state, but this BS of "winner take all" pretty much means that a democrat in Kansas OR a republican in California will ever have their vote count in a presidential election.

Just for your information. My, My.My! http://thetruthdivision.com/2016/11...inst-obama-in-2008-where-were-the-riots-then/

 

[xUT]

Maybe we should change that...

Exactly!
As it is now, my vote doesn't mean squat.
Why should someone have more power in their vote than I?
As Dell stated, we are not a democracy.
JMHO, we are more aristocratic than a republic.
I hoped Trump would 'drain the swamp', so much for that.

 

[KCFlyer]

Just for your information. My, My.My! http://thetruthdivision.com/2016/11...inst-obama-in-2008-where-were-the-riots-then/

I wasn't aware that the electoral college was involved in determining a parties nominee. Half the population doesn't even vote in a democratic primary or republican primary. But those who DO decide to vote in a GENERAL ELECTION deserve to have their voices heard.

That means that Kansas should have given 2 electoral votes to Hillary and California should have given 17 electoral votes to Trump. As it is - it's "all or nothing" in all but 2 states. That means that if I voted for Hillary, then MY vote did not count. It was an exercise in "feel good".

Same thing for Hillary voters in Pennsylvania - 47% voted for Hillary, the electoral vote indicates that nobody voted for her in that state., since Trump got all 20 votes. IMHO, trump should have gotten 11 and Hillary 9. They were also "feel good" votes for people who voted for Hillary. It may have changed the outcome of the election...it may not have. But it is a far sight better than this all or nothing BS that we currently have.

 

[Insp4]

May not be official,but interesting. https://www.instagram.com/p/BMu_ypuB6WZ/

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true

"Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead now up to 1.2 million w/ 130.6 million votes counted & lots more to go."

 

[xUT]

Places like Wyoming and Nebraska would never see another Presidential candidate again without some form of electoral college.

How does the electoral college pick a presidential candidate based on where they are from?
No they can't.
Their only role is to vote on the election, they hove no involvement on selection.

 

[KCFlyer]

can't agree with you there, to me it just opens the door to California and New England/NY decided most elections

Yes. And these tax cut policies that the republicans have will create jobs in Casper, Omaha, and Cedar Rapids...right?

 

[Zom JFK]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-some-electors-go-rogue/ar-AAklUBH?li=BBnb7Kz
So delusional. Well it will be fun to see them crushed all over again when this doesn't happen.

 

[Zom JFK]

Yes. And these tax cut policies that the republicans have will create jobs in Casper, Omaha, and Cedar Rapids...right?

And how many jobs would Hillary's tax policies have created? Guess we'll never know.

 

[KCFlyer]

And how many jobs would Hillary's tax policies have created? Guess we'll never know.

NOpe...we never will. But I can let you in on a secret...we will never create enough jobs to cover the "income hole" that Trump's tax policy will create. As I said...they've tried it here in Kansas and it is an abject failure. BUT....if you toss a blue collar worker a 2% tax cut....enough to buy groceries for about a month....they will fight hard for the 20% tax cut for the rich dudes. And corporations, with all that newfound money, will be able to have even MORE stock buybacks to make the execs rich. That might create a job for a maid or two...the execs might pop for hiring some better help around the estate. but stock buybacks do not create jobs.

 

[Zom JFK]

NOpe...we never will. But I can let you in on a secret...we will never create enough jobs to cover the "income hole" that Trump's tax policy will create. As I said...they've tried it here in Kansas and it is an abject failure. BUT....if you toss a blue collar worker a 2% tax cut....enough to buy groceries for about a month....they will fight hard for the 20% tax cut for the rich dudes. And corporations, with all that newfound money, will be able to have even MORE stock buybacks to make the execs rich. That might create a job for a maid or two...the execs might pop for hiring some better help around the estate. but stock buybacks do not create jobs.

Yeah Tax increases do create jobs. Too bad Hillary lost.

 

[cltrat]

Yes. And these tax cut policies that the republicans have will create jobs in Casper, Omaha, and Cedar Rapids...right?

I'll let you know when I figure out what that has to do with the thread topic Electoral College

 

[KCFlyer]

Yeah Tax increases do create jobs. Too bad Hillary lost.

Didn't Bill Clinton raise taxes? Yeah...the 90's really sucked.

 

[KCFlyer]

I'll let you know when I figure out what that has to do with the thread topic Electoral College

Because without the elecoral college, Only California and New York will elect the president. WITH the electoral college, those midwesterners are insuring job creation in California and New York....but not their home states. BUT...midwesterners tend to vote against their own best interests most of the time. Read the book "What's the Matter with Kansas"

 

[Zom JFK]

Didn't Bill Clinton raise taxes? Yeah...the 90's really sucked.

Yeah and Bill Clinton's policies (Glass/Stegal erased among them) paved the way for the crash of 2008. What a guy. Thank god were done with the Clinton's.