NoBSU said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Nearly 4 million Californians wasted their time voting for President in 2016....

---

So? They plan to leave the USA and give the Republican part of the state over to a large Indian nation. Pretty fair minded people when they lose.

---

so Texas doesn't deserve their votes to matter since they threaten secession every time a Democrat wins the White House?

there is no rational reason for a vote in Wyoming being worth 4 votes in California

---

Texas has a unique status that California does not have with secession.

There is a very rational reason - United States of America. States. The design was for a reason. They also designed a way to make changes into the system. So if you think the system is dated, then change it.

---

Texas has used secession once... how'd that work out?

at some point this will change.... just like the 3/5 of a person changed.... arcane rules go by the wayside over time....

right now it's a tough sell because it favors the white majority....

If Dems had won the White House twice in the last 2 decades with fewer votes the GOP would be burning the country to the ground....

actually. they are kind of doing that anyway

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Nearly 4 million Californians wasted their time voting for President in 2016....

---

So? They plan to leave the USA and give the Republican part of the state over to a large Indian nation. Pretty fair minded people when they lose.

---

so Texas doesn't deserve their votes to matter since they threaten secession every time a Democrat wins the White House?

there is no rational reason for a vote in Wyoming being worth 4 votes in California

---

Texas has a unique status that California does not have with secession.

There is a very rational reason - United States of America. States. The design was for a reason. They also designed a way to make changes into the system. So if you think the system is dated, then change it.

---

Texas has used secession once... how'd that work out?

at some point this will change.... just like the 3/5 of a person changed.... arcane rules go by the wayside over time....

right now it's a tough sell because it favors the white majority....

If Dems had won the White House twice in the last 2 decades with fewer votes the GOP would be burning the country to the ground....

actually. they are kind of doing that anyway

---

Don't know about Texas' success or failures except maybe the Alamo. You guy can't seem to get over that. Kind of like Trump winning.

Born, raised, and live in Missouri. I burn brush. I don't burn my country win or lose a 4 year term. You might consider that.

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Nearly 4 million Californians wasted their time voting for President in 2016....

---

So? They plan to leave the USA and give the Republican part of the state over to a large Indian nation. Pretty fair minded people when they lose.

---

so Texas doesn't deserve their votes to matter since they threaten secession every time a Democrat wins the White House?

there is no rational reason for a vote in Wyoming being worth 4 votes in California

---

Texas has a unique status that California does not have with secession.

There is a very rational reason - United States of America. States. The design was for a reason. They also designed a way to make changes into the system. So if you think the system is dated, then change it.

---

Texas has used secession once... how'd that work out?

at some point this will change.... just like the 3/5 of a person changed.... arcane rules go by the wayside over time....

right now it's a tough sell because it favors the white majority....

If Dems had won the White House twice in the last 2 decades with fewer votes the GOP would be burning the country to the ground....

actually. they are kind of doing that anyway

---

Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever?

The GOP's 2016 presidential nominee will have a heck of a time winning the Electoral College.
Myra Adams
08.18.13

After totaling the electoral votes in all the terminally blue states, an inconvenient math emerges, providing even a below average Democrat presidential candidate a potential starting advantage of 246.

Let me repeat, if only for the shock value: 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)

No wonder President Obama was so confident of victory in 2012, for he knew the game was practically over before it began. In case you need reminding, the final Electoral College score was a lopsided 332-206.

The Republican Party leadership, well aware of this depressing math, is now making an attempt to change the rules of the game by supporting an effort whereby states would proportionally award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district.

It is obvious that discarding the current "winner take all" system would vastly improve the prospects of electing a Republican president. But first, this initiative must pass state legislatures before reaching a governor's desk, where it may or may not be signed into law.

To change from the Electoral College to direct voting would require a constitutional amendment. But it is highly doubtful that such an amendment would gain any traction in Congress since Democrat leaders have grown fond of the severely slanted Electoral College and have no incentive to make such a change. (Yes, Democrats also remember Al Gore in 2000, but that was ancient electoral math.)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/can-a-republican-win-270-electoral-votes-in-2016or-ever

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.

---

I'm not really advocating that. I'm just saying that system would be better than awarding electors based on congressional districts. A proportional system would still have problems.

I'm for a popular vote, but that requires a constitutional amendment. And it would be hard to get the requisite number of states when so many small-population states have an advantage under the Electoral College system.

---

I think Professor Lessig's proposal is more in line with what the framers had in mind because it requires candidates to fight for votes in every state and not just the few lucky enough to be viewed as swing states.

The Constitution does indeed delegate tot he states the manner of selection for presidential electors:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I assume the primary argument in the suit is that many things are delegated to states to decide, but the states' decisions cannot violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to have a meaningful vote being one of them. However, I don't understand how you fix this flaw.

Right now the votes of Republican Californians and Democratic Texans "don't count." Why is that? Turnout. If every registered California Republican voted for Trump he would have carried the state; the reverse is true in Texas. Get your people to the polls would be my first answer.

Second, times change. Texas used to be solidly blue. It will probably be purple in a decade. Why do we tinker with something that is going to change anyway.

Third, what is the alternative? If it is popular vote apportionment by state, how do you deal with rural states that have very few electoral votes to split up? If it is to mandate electoral vote by congressional district, there are one-district states and many districts are still non-competitive. If it is national popular vote, you need an amendment, not a lawsuit.

Booray said:

---

The Constitution does indeed delegate tot he states the manner of selection for presidential electors:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I assume the primary argument in the suit is that many things are delegated to states to decide, but the states' decisions cannot violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to have a meaningful vote being one of them. However, I don't understand how you fix this flaw.

Right now the votes of Republican Californians and Democratic Texans "don't count." Why is that? Turnout. If every registered California Republican voted for Trump he would have carried the state; the reverse is true in Texas. Get your people to the polls would be my first answer.

Second, times change. Texas used to be solidly blue. It will probably be purple in a decade. Why do we tinker with something that is going to change anyway.

Third, what is the alternative? If it is popular vote apportionment by state, how do you deal with rural states that have very few electoral votes to split up? If it is to mandate electoral vote by congressional district, there are one-district states and many districts are still non-competitive. If it is national popular vote, you need an amendment, not a lawsuit.

---

The practice of state electors to vote in line with the winner of the popular vote is enshrined in a tradition that limits the free agency of the electors.

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Nearly 4 million Californians wasted their time voting for President in 2016....

---

So? They plan to leave the USA and give the Republican part of the state over to a large Indian nation. Pretty fair minded people when they lose.

---

so Texas doesn't deserve their votes to matter since they threaten secession every time a Democrat wins the White House?

there is no rational reason for a vote in Wyoming being worth 4 votes in California

---

Texas has a unique status that California does not have with secession.

There is a very rational reason - United States of America. States. The design was for a reason. They also designed a way to make changes into the system. So if you think the system is dated, then change it.

---

Texas has used secession once... how'd that work out?

at some point this will change.... just like the 3/5 of a person changed.... arcane rules go by the wayside over time....

right now it's a tough sell because it favors the white majority....

If Dems had won the White House twice in the last 2 decades with fewer votes the GOP would be burning the country to the ground....

actually. they are kind of doing that anyway

---

Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever?

The GOP's 2016 presidential nominee will have a heck of a time winning the Electoral College.
Myra Adams
08.18.13

After totaling the electoral votes in all the terminally blue states, an inconvenient math emerges, providing even a below average Democrat presidential candidate a potential starting advantage of 246.

Let me repeat, if only for the shock value: 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)

No wonder President Obama was so confident of victory in 2012, for he knew the game was practically over before it began. In case you need reminding, the final Electoral College score was a lopsided 332-206.

The Republican Party leadership, well aware of this depressing math, is now making an attempt to change the rules of the game by supporting an effort whereby states would proportionally award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district.

It is obvious that discarding the current "winner take all" system would vastly improve the prospects of electing a Republican president. But first, this initiative must pass state legislatures before reaching a governor's desk, where it may or may not be signed into law.

To change from the Electoral College to direct voting would require a constitutional amendment. But it is highly doubtful that such an amendment would gain any traction in Congress since Democrat leaders have grown fond of the severely slanted Electoral College and have no incentive to make such a change. (Yes, Democrats also remember Al Gore in 2000, but that was ancient electoral math.)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/can-a-republican-win-270-electoral-votes-in-2016or-ever

---

That's hilarious.

cinque said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.

---

I'm not really advocating that. I'm just saying that system would be better than awarding electors based on congressional districts. A proportional system would still have problems.

I'm for a popular vote, but that requires a constitutional amendment. And it would be hard to get the requisite number of states when so many small-population states have an advantage under the Electoral College system.

---

I think Professor Lessig's proposal is more in line with what the framers had in mind because it requires candidates to fight for votes in every state and not just the few lucky enough to be viewed as swing states.

---

Meh, I don't the framers had in mind that a candidate from Massachusetts like John Adams would travel to campaign in Georgia

Booray said:

---

If it is popular vote apportionment by state, how do you deal with rural states that have very few electoral votes to split up?

---

Caveat: I don't favor this alternative, really, but...

The real advantage of the small states is that they get two electoral votes for their senate representation. That's the biggest magnifier of their power. So even under a proportional scheme, they'd be dividing a proportion of a much bigger pie than they'd get if it were purely a popular vote.

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.

---

I'm not really advocating that. I'm just saying that system would be better than awarding electors based on congressional districts. A proportional system would still have problems.

I'm for a popular vote, but that requires a constitutional amendment. And it would be hard to get the requisite number of states when so many small-population states have an advantage under the Electoral College system.

---

I think Professor Lessig's proposal is more in line with what the framers had in mind because it requires candidates to fight for votes in every state and not just the few lucky enough to be viewed as swing states.

---

Meh, I don't the framers had in mind that a candidate from Massachusetts like John Adams would travel to campaign in Georgia

---

I don't think they imagined or California or Texas with 30 and 40 million in each of those states.

cinque said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.

---

I'm not really advocating that. I'm just saying that system would be better than awarding electors based on congressional districts. A proportional system would still have problems.

I'm for a popular vote, but that requires a constitutional amendment. And it would be hard to get the requisite number of states when so many small-population states have an advantage under the Electoral College system.

---

I think Professor Lessig's proposal is more in line with what the framers had in mind because it requires candidates to fight for votes in every state and not just the few lucky enough to be viewed as swing states.

---

Meh, I don't the framers had in mind that a candidate from Massachusetts like John Adams would travel to campaign in Georgia

---

I don't think they imagined or California or Texas with 30 and 40 million in each of those states.

---

Very true. People who believe we should treat the Constitution as a document that should rarely if ever be changed sometimes treat the framers as if they could see the future clearly. They well understood human nature and the dangers of power, and the document reflects that. But it's sobering to think that they inhabited a world that was closer to the time of Henry VIII than our present day. They would still grasp how power plays out in a world like ours, but they might well apply different approaches to keep power in check in light of the dynamics of our very different world.

Agreed. Had Hillary known she could have received 40% of the electors in Texas there's reason to believe neither candidate would have left nothing to chance.

cinque said:

---

Agreed. Had Hillary known she could have received 40% of the electors in Texas there's reason to believe neither candidate would have left nothing to chance.

---

You really are a special kind of stupid. Do you really think neither Killary nor Trump came to Texas during the campaign? Both were here numerous times raising money and talking with voters.

GrowlTowel said:

---

cinque said:

---

Agreed. Had Hillary known she could have received 40% of the electors in Texas there's reason to believe neither candidate would have left nothing to chance.

---

You really are a special kind of stupid. Do you really think neither Killary nor Trump came to Texas during the campaign? Both were here numerous times raising money and talking with voters.

---

One reason that Clinton lost was not going to states where she didn't think she needed to go.

GrowlTowel said:

---

cinque said:

---

Agreed. Had Hillary known she could have received 40% of the electors in Texas there's reason to believe neither candidate would have left nothing to chance.

---

You really are a special kind of stupid. Do you really think neither Killary nor Trump came to Texas during the campaign? Both were here numerous times raising money and talking with voters.

---

Fundraisers are different than actively campaigning in a state. Of course they will come here to get money, but that's different than actively trying to accumulate votes in a state. The candidates spend disproportionally more time in much smaller states than they do in the states with the most power, wealth and population, which includes Texas.

The Right to Vote does not guarantee you will be happy with the outcome. Ultimately, its a winner take all battle as there can only be one President. Majorities have been crushing the losing parties for 200 years now.

That being said there are changes that could be made that do not require a Constitutional Amendment. An Act of Congress in 1911 set the House of Representatives at 435, where it has remained, resulting in the fact we have Cong. Districts more populous than a number of the States. Congress can lower apportionment, increase the number of Congressmen, and increase the total number of Electors determined by that. This would give more electoral votes to populous states like Texas, diminish the power of the small states, and could help to end or work around gerrymandering in many of the populous states. As to the logistial problems of an extra 50-100 seats in Congress, we could modernize the process. In the present era, it is absurd that Congress needs to be present to vote. The rest of the world works remote, would Congress be any less effective if they did?

Professor Lessig explains the rationale for his lawsuit:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?449762-4/washington-journal-lawrence-lessig-discusses-legal-challenges-electoral-college

I have not received my talking points, but should I be against the Senate to?

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

I'm The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.

---

How do you know?

---

I have a degree from Baylor. Required class.

---

And Professor Lessig has degrees from Penn and Yale and he doesn't think it's that clear. So...

---

Go read the Constitution, it assigns responsibility for the selection of electors.

---

Why don't presidential candidates in Texas?

---

Go read the Constitution.

---

I have and it doesn't explain why presidential candidates don't campaign in Texas. Do you know why?

---

i do... its probably the same reason they dont in California

Now, stop thinking of the election as one big election and start thinking of the election as 50 small elections that must be won. That is the electoral system, all the votes given to Hillary were discarded when Trump won the electoral system. All of one side's votes in a given state are discarded when that states winner is declared. This is a stupid lawsuit.

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

I'm The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.

---

How do you know?

---

I have a degree from Baylor. Required class.

---

And Professor Lessig has degrees from Penn and Yale and he doesn't think it's that clear. So...

---

Go read the Constitution, it assigns responsibility for the selection of electors.

---

Why don't presidential candidates in Texas?

---

Go read the Constitution.

---

I have and it doesn't explain why presidential candidates don't campaign in Texas. Do you know why?

---

i do... its probably the same reason they dont in California

Now, stop thinking of the election as one big election and start thinking of the election as 50 small elections that must be won. That is the electoral system, all the votes given to Hillary were discarded when Trump won the electoral system. All of one side's votes in a given state are discarded when that states winner is declared. This is a stupid lawsuit.

---

But it isn't 50 small elections. The outcomes of about 35-40 of the elections are already determined. A republican presidential candidate will never win several states anytime in the near future unless their is a seismic shift in politics and a democrat will never win several states anytime in the near future. Our national election comes down to 10-15 small elections, if we are being optimistic, and realistically down to 5-10 small elections in most presidential elections. And so the candidates spend most of their time and money and efforts in those states. That's not how a representative government is supposed to work. And IMHO, this assumption of votes has lead to both of the parties ignoring the core values of their most loyal of voters.

I didnt say it was a good system or that it wasnt in need of change- it is the system we have and both sides know it... to be crying about the loss almost two years later is beyond childish.

Keyser Soze said:

---

I have not received my talking points, but should I be against the Senate to?

---

I received some by mistake. We should move to electronic voting. Politicians stay at home and Skype for debates, committees, and votes. Eventually we can eliminate both houses and just pass legislation via Facebook ettc. polls. The President proposes it, the president signs/vetoes it, and then the court strikes it down or amends it. Parties function via social media ads and lawyers .

Gruvin said:

---

I didnt say it was a good system or that it wasnt in need of change- it is the system we have and both sides know it... to be crying about the loss almost two years later is beyond childish.

---

Then I guess you misunderstand the purpose of the lawsuit. The lawsuit isn't being file to retroactively change the 2016 election, it is to make changes going forward, which you just agreed changes need to be made.

contrario said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

I didnt say it was a good system or that it wasnt in need of change- it is the system we have and both sides know it... to be crying about the loss almost two years later is beyond childish.

---

Then I guess you misunderstand the purpose of the lawsuit. The lawsuit isn't being file to retroactively change the 2016 election, it is to make changes going forward, which you just agreed changes need to be made.

---

well then, good luck to him with getting anywhere with his lawsuit...

unlikely the system will be held as unconstitutional because... that makes it a legislative issue and the side that wants change doesnt have the power to change it. If they were in power then they would not want the change either as that is how they got into power so it isnt broken, right?

contrario said:

---

The outcomes of about 35-40 of the elections are already determined.

---

That's what Hillary thought.

Sam Lowry said:

---

contrario said:

---

The outcomes of about 35-40 of the elections are already determined.

---

That's what Hillary thought.

---

lol.... you know that your response has nothing to do with what he is talking about yet you post it anyway.

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

contrario said:

---

The outcomes of about 35-40 of the elections are already determined.

---

That's what Hillary thought.

---

lol.... you know that your response has nothing to do with what he is talking about yet you post it anyway.

---

That makes no sense.

Keyser Soze said:

---

I have not received my talking points, but should I be against the Senate to?

---

The Senate may be a historically racist institution designed to protect the interests of straight white males. Or it may be a necessary check and balance to the tyranny of the majority. We'll know for sure on November 6.

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

contrario said:

---

The outcomes of about 35-40 of the elections are already determined.

---

That's what Hillary thought.

---

lol.... you know that your response has nothing to do with what he is talking about yet you post it anyway.

---

That makes no sense.

---

Hillary did think that she had several locked down but they weren't.

To be fair and do the math.

Dem Presidential locks
Cali
Oregon
Washington
New Mexico
Colorado
Minnesota
Chicago oops Illinois as downstate is rural and therefore irrelevant
New York
New Jersey
Mass
Maryland
Hawaii
Vermont
Delaware
Rhode Island
Connecticut

Republican Presidential locks.
Alaska
Montana
Wyoming
N Dakota
S Dakota
Utah
Arizona
Kansas
Nebraska
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Idaho
Indiana
Tennessee (Bill Clinton did but Al Gore didn't so is this more about Gore?)

I count 32 locks. Probably left out a couple from the last few elections. But I think you should go back to Bill Clinton. Lots of leans in the mix and they get some compaigning. Hillary thought leans were locks. But if a Democrat wants to win Texas in the presidential Election, then run somebody on the ticket other than a Senator from Chicago, Chicago/New York, Delaware, Virginia maybe. Or file a lawsuit.

Many Dems probably think Harris or Warren are great candidates but I think they are a loss.

Would it be a win for representative democracy to have electors in Texas and California proportionally allocated?

cinque said:

---

Would it be a win for representative democracy to have electors in Texas and California proportionally allocated?

---

No. States elect the president, not the people.

GrowlTowel said:

---

cinque said:

---

Would it be a win for representative democracy to have electors in Texas and California proportionally allocated?

---

No. States elect the president, not the people.

---

Why do people vote in presidential election if not to elect a president?

cinque said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

cinque said:

---

Would it be a win for representative democracy to have electors in Texas and California proportionally allocated?

---

No. States elect the president, not the people.

---

Why do people vote in presidential election if not to elect a president?

---

People vote for electors. It is one of a couple of ways a president may be selected. We've never had direct election of the president. A lot of democratic countries select their leader by something other than direct election by the people. The is nothing special or superior about direct election.

One point to add to this discussion - we don't know the REAL popular vote because there was not a REAL popular vote.

What?

Turnout was obviously based on the system we have in place. We have already discussed how about a dozen battleground states swing a National election. Anyone think the turnout would be greatly different in the 38 non-battleground states if there was a true popular vote?

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

cinque said:

---

Would it be a win for representative democracy to have electors in Texas and California proportionally allocated?

---

No. States elect the president, not the people.

---

Why do people vote in presidential election if not to elect a president?

---

People vote for electors. It is one of a couple of ways a president may be selected. We've never had direct election of the president. A lot of democratic countries select their leader by something other than direct election by the people. The is nothing special or superior about direct election.

---

You think the majority of people who vote in presidential elections do so with the thought of voting for electors?