@teinosuke saidAl Gore would have won if he took his home state of Tennessee
Which four states and how? The most populous four states add up to 151 electoral votes, far short of a majority.
In 2000, Al Gore would have won (even without Florida) had he managed to hold on to (then traditionally Democratic) West Virginia, with its modest four electoral votes. Every electoral vote counts. It's surely just a small step from this to move towards a sens ...[text shortened]... ll of them were effectively disenfranchised, since their votes had no representation in the college.
@cheesemaster saidWhich is nonsense. They wouldn't. The population of those four states is only about 30% of the total population of the US, far short of a majority.
@Teinosuke
We are talking about population votes.
So California, New York, Texas and Florida would decide every election if they got rid of the EC.
Follow along.
And two of those four states voted for Trump last time, Texas by a significant margin.
@Teinosuke
The point is...
Populous states would have more say in an election that is based on one man one vote BS.
We are not scattered around the country.
Blue states are predominantly democrat and Red States are predominantly Republican.
Blue Democratic states have way more people than Red Republican States.
So those populous regions..."the coastal states" would decide every election and cancel out the rest.
Causing low population states to not even bother voting.
State rights will always exist.
@teinosuke saidOnly half of Americans voted last election.
Which is nonsense. They wouldn't. The population of those four states is only about 30% of the total population of the US, far short of a majority.
And two of those four states voted for Trump last time, Texas by a significant margin.
How many of the half came from coastal states?
@teinosuke saidThose 4 states cover one 3rd of an election if it was based on a population vote.
Which is nonsense. They wouldn't. The population of those four states is only about 30% of the total population of the US, far short of a majority.
And two of those four states voted for Trump last time, Texas by a significant margin.
4 states cover one 3rd?!
Just because 2 went to Trump does not make it OK.
It isn't fair to the other 46 states.
@cheesemaster saidWhy is it that you people are more interested in the votes of a piece of dirt than the votes of voters?
Those 4 states cover one 3rd of an election if it was based on a population vote.
4 states cover one 3rd?!
Just because 2 went to Trump does not make it OK.
It isn't fair to the other 46 states.
@cheesemaster saidIn other words, most of the voters are Democrats, and you need some way to win even though the people aren't voting for you.
@Teinosuke
The point is...
Populous states would have more say in an election that is based on one man one vote BS.
We are not scattered around the country.
Blue states are predominantly democrat and Red States are predominantly Republican.
Blue Democratic states have way more people than Red Republican States.
So those populous regions..."the coastal states" w ...[text shortened]... rest.
Causing low population states to not even bother voting.
State rights will always exist.
@athousandyoung saidThose "pieces of dirt" grow the food for your ungrateful democrat cities you uneducated prat.
Why is it that you people are more interested in the votes of a piece of dirt than the votes of voters?
@athousandyoung saidNope.
In other words, most of the voters are Democrats, and you need some way to win even though the people aren't voting for you.
The USA is big.
Many different regions and climates.
Population centers don't understand infrastructure or farming or anything else because all they care about is their region.
The EC protects all of the different regions.
The USA is too big for a population vote.
@cheesemaster saidNo actually we export food from California. Try again.
Those "pieces of dirt" grow the food for your ungrateful democrat cities you uneducated prat.
@Cheesemaster
And you know good and well Repubs have championed voter suppression and gerrymandering and loading the lower courts and now SCOTUS with right wingers so tell me again how bipartisan they are right now.
I can only assume you don't WANT a true democracy but are ok with Trump establishing a permanent dictatorship and the end of the USA as we knew it.
But that is not going to happen because his sorry ass is losing and this time the democrats are wise to the suppression deal and realize if they vote enough, say more than 10% that will cover that suppression.
If we take the WH, Senate and keep the house, there will be new laws enacted to save ACA from being ravaged by SCOTUS which was Moscow Mitch and Lindsey Graham Cracker and Trump wants.
So the way to save all that has been gained is to make laws about the subjects like ACA, Roe V Wade and gay rights and such. If they are enshrined in law, Scotus is stalemated.
But of course in your mind that would be a disaster.
You would love a SCOTUS with all NINE ultrarightwingnuts.
Then companies would be back screwing up the environment like in the 19th century, or like back then if you want heat in your workplace you better bring your own coal, it was SO expensive back then the poor companies just could not afford to keep their workers from freezing but who cared about workers, they are all disposable anyway, subhuman, WHAT THE HELL? THEY WANT TO ORGANIZE IN A UNION?
SEND THE THUGS TO KILL THEM, WE billionaires are in charge here, not the rabble working for us.
Of course that could NEVER happen here under Trump could it?
Because Trump is SO empathic he would NEVER allow big corp to screw with their workers like they did 200 years ago.
