Ned Stark: Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Maybe if Republicans stopped whining about Hollywood elitists or Nancy Pelosi's "San Francisco values," they might have a chance to win in California.

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

I don't understand why we don't have 100% registration. Give every single person in the United States a free national ID card, and register every single one of us Even if it cost something outrageous like $50 per person per year to keep the registration current, it would still be less than 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget.

Seriously, I think it would be worth it just to make this stupid argument go away.

magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

The Larch: I don't understand why we don't have 100% registration. Give every single person in the United States a free national ID card, and register every single one of us Even if it cost something outrageous like $50 per person per year to keep the registration current, it would still be less than 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget.

Seriously, I think it would be worth it just to make this stupid argument go away.

It would be great for voters rights, which is exactly why the GOP would be against it. Too easy for democrats to vote...

This just in, we Ohioans are all a bunch of big jackasses who end up screwing the rest of the country.
I'd encourage the entire state to commit suicide to save the country, but I don't have the guts to kill myself.

The Larch: I don't understand why we don't have 100% registration. Give every single person in the United States a free national ID card, and register every single one of us Even if it cost something outrageous like $50 per person per year to keep the registration current, it would still be less than 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget.

Seriously, I think it would be worth it just to make this stupid argument go away.

In Australia, elections are mandatory and they have barbeques or "sausage sizzles" at the polling places

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

In the United States, yes. This is a fact of our corrupt voting system, and is one of the many sins we Americans are responsible for.

Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

I guess you are against Federalism and state's rights?

I'm against the electoral college for sure. States rights is a funny question. In principle, yeah government should be seperated from the governed by as few degrees as possible but in practice seems to mostly mean *nudge nudge wink wink* let's hang a darkie, or these days a gay.

So then you are for popular vote but against anything you would have to do and make it fair? You dodged my questions. I am tired of people like you who want something in principal but then understand jack shiat on how it could work out in detail.

Wit now? Please rephrase your outrage. I think you lost a verb somewhere.

Corvus: So then you are for popular vote but against anything you would have to do and make it fair? You dodged my questions. I am tired of people like you who want something in principal but then understand jack shiat on how it could work out in detail.

Newsflash: You can tell who is racist by their starting a statement "I'm not racist..."

Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Your vote counted. You were voting on those 7 electors. You farking lost. Get over it. Want your vote to "count"? Convince enough of your fellow voters that voting your way is better.

Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Would it make you feel better if we sent 5 votes for your side? Because guess what, if every state did that the outcome would still be the same.

Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

If the alternative is a WORSE system then it would be stupid to do switch. You think being different makes it better. That is just not true.

You have a belief that just because one system has a flaw doing things another way must be better. That is not true at all. It's a simpleton mind set to think that way.

Still really not following you. The point ofan election is either to reflect the will of the people, or to pretend too.

Unless you wanna play pretend, popular vote for the president>>>>voting for member of some pointless intermidiary electoral body.

I want to see anyone on the Right come in here and defend ANY of these measures, with the bullshiat filter turned off. Tell us how they will TRULY wipe out voter fraud without disenfranchising any voters.

The clock is ticking...

birchman: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Would it make you feel better if we sent 5 votes for your side? Because guess what, if every state did that the outcome would still be the same.

He does know that Democrats won the popular vote in California too right?

Is he just butthurt over the fact that San Francisco and LA are heavily Democratic and therefore drowns out his Republican vote?

He needs to face it, unless he throws out all the votes from Democrats, Republicans won't win in CA on a presidential level regardless of whatever convoluted proposal he suggests.

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Your vote counted. You were voting on those 7 electors. You farking lost. Get over it. Want your vote to "count"? Convince enough of your fellow voters that voting your way is better.

This bears repeating.
If your vote got invalidated because you were too lazy to get enough people to vote your way, you deserve the consequences. If you don't like it, work to change the system. Either way, take responsibility for your actions, or lack thereof.

birchman: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Would it make you feel better if we sent 5 votes for your side? Because guess what, if every state did that the outcome would still be the same.

That would be a minor improvement yes. Happy is a strong word though.

Ned Stark: birchman: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Would it make you feel better if we sent 5 votes for your side? Because guess what, if every state did that the outcome would still be the same.

That would be a minor improvement yes. Happy is a strong word though.

Then why haven't you started a campaign to change it, and why is it not successfully changed by now? The only reason you'd be biatching is because it's still the same, and the only reason for that is that you were too lazy to change it. It's the same principle as biatching when you don't vote, you lose that right because you didn't bother or try hard enough.

Ned Stark: birchman: Ned Stark: Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: magusdevil: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The dude I was responding to was specifically talking about the electoral college. And California is winner take all so, yeah no republicans there have cast a vote for president that's meant a damn thing.

So you are against the concept of federalism?

You are ok for having standard national voting laws then and not allow stated to have separate voting laws?

For national elections, absolutely.

Only one President has been "elected" without the popular vote in the last 130 years, but that was George W. Bush. And that was due less to the electoral college than to the SCOTUS overstepping their authority.

The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

So do you believe that your vote is "thrown out" every time you are not on the winning side of the vote? Is victory required for your vote to count?

No. My guy losing in my state and my state sending on 7 votes for the other guy is fundamentally different from my guy losing in my state and my state sending on 1.1M votes for the other guy and 800k for mine. For a whole host of reasons.

Would it make you feel better if we sent 5 votes for your side? Because guess what, if every state did that the outcome would still be the same.

That would be a minor improvement yes. Happy is a strong word though.

OK, well you know that means that Democrats in red states will get votes too right? And that the number of electoral votes for each state is based on population?

Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

It really is sad to see what pathetic lows this country has come to in terms of knowledge of the Constitution.


The fact that the filthy peasants think they have a right to vote is nauseating.

SphericalTime: Lando Lincoln: Republicans must be so proud to be part of the party that does whatever it can to dissuade Americans from voting.

So goddamn patriotic it makes my heart ache.

Republicans: If you don't vote for them, then you shouldn't get the vote. USA, USA, USA!

For our Freedoms or whatever.

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

I can make the same argument for both branches of Congress too, that doesn't mean that I think that every single bill should be put up for a national popular vote.

Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: I know no one will listen but this is why we should not move to a popular vote from the Electoral college.

At least now Voter suppression only hurts for that specific state. If we use popular vote to pick the president voter suppression will affect the entire election tally.

If I am the governor of a blue state like California, I can start suppressing votes and tip the entire election. Yes CA would still have a Democrat majority but the votes would be massively reduced giving the Republican a better chance to win nationally. That can not happen like this now.

Which is worse than every single republican in California having their vote thrown out every election?

Democrats hate democracy.

I guess you are against Federalism and state's rights?

I'm against the electoral college for sure. States rights is a funny question. In principle, yeah government should be seperated from the governed by as few degrees as possible but in practice seems to mostly mean *nudge nudge wink wink* let's hang a darkie, or these days a gay.

So then you are for popular vote but against anything you would have to do and make it fair? You dodged my questions. I am tired of people like you who want something in principal but then understand jack shiat on how it could work out in detail.

Wit now? Please rephrase your outrage. I think you lost a verb somewhere.

So you believe then all laws for federal election would need to be done at the federal level? No states could make laws based for federal elections anymore?

Basically we would remove a huge portion of this country being a federalism because states would no longer be responsible for how their own representation are elected? You are ok with that?

No me pointing out you haven't thought through your ideas isn't "outrage" its more amusement.

Oh, yes then. "states rights" is a pretty broad term dude, it was unclear what you meant.

Federal elections should have federal laws.

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Even with the popular vote, CA is a safe state for the Democrats on a Presidential level.

Obama won the state 61%-37%



Face it, it's not the fact that the Republican voters in CA are disenfranchised, it's just that there aren't enough of them to counter all the Democrat voters out there.

You may think you're just being disenfranchised by the system but the reality is that voters like you are a minority in California. It's like the people across the rivers in IL who complain how even though 95% of the counties vote Republican, the Democrats always win because Chicago always votes Democrat. Well it's not because the system it's unfair, it's just that there are more voters in Chicago to cancel out your Republican vote.

Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Ok fine. Are you going to answer the previous question I asked you on how your system would actually work or are you going to keep ignoring them?

A straight popular vote for the president is hardly difficult to understand.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Someone needs to build a time machine quick so we can see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt beating the ever-loving shiat out of the leaders of the modern GOP.

Wouldn't they first be shocked that somehow women and minorities have been given the right to vote?

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

The only reason any state is "safe" is that one of the national parties represents the wishes of significant majority of the people of that state. When they cease to do so, that state either becomes a toss up or switches to being "safe" for the other party.

California is a great example of this. Until 1992 the Republicans had a majority of voters in California convinced that they best represented their interests, so the States electors wen to the Republican candidate for President. From 1992 until the present the Republicans have failed to do so. If the republicans can convince a majority that they again will best represent their interests, the State will no longer be "safe".

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Ok fine. Are you going to answer the previous question I asked you on how your system would actually work or are you going to keep ignoring them?

A straight popular vote for the president is hardly difficult to understand.

Why stop at just the President? He's not the only one that affects federal policy. Take this to the logical conclusion dude, it gets out of control really quickly.

Mrtraveler01: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Even with the popular vote, CA is a safe state for the Democrats on a Presidential level.

Obama won the state 61%-37%



Face it, it's not the fact that the Republican voters in CA are disenfranchised, it's just that there aren't enough of them to counter all the Democrat voters out there.

You may think you're just being disenfranchised by the system but the reality is that voters like you are a minority in California. It's like the people across the rivers in IL who complain how even though 95% of the counties vote Republican, the Democrats always win because Chicago always votes Democrat. Well it's not because the system it's unfair, it's just that there are more voters in Chicago to cancel out your Republican vote.

Did you miss the bit about California was about how it makes the democrats there have less of a voice? That's key.

Also, still not a republican.

Ned Stark: Mrtraveler01: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Even with the popular vote, CA is a safe state for the Democrats on a Presidential level.

Obama won the state 61%-37%



Face it, it's not the fact that the Republican voters in CA are disenfranchised, it's just that there aren't enough of them to counter all the Democrat voters out there.

You may think you're just being disenfranchised by the system but the reality is that voters like you are a minority in California. It's like the people across the rivers in IL who complain how even though 95% of the counties vote Republican, the Democrats always win because Chicago always votes Democrat. Well it's not because the system it's unfair, it's just that there are more voters in Chicago to cancel out your Republican vote.

Did you miss the bit about California was about how it makes the democrats there have less of a voice? That's key.

Also, still not a republican.

The point is that CA is not a safe state because of the Electoral College, it's a safe state because a majority of the state already votes Democrat.

birchman: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

I can make the same argument for both branches of Congress too, that doesn't mean that I think that every single bill should be put up for a national popular vote.

Cool strawman bro!

To expand on my last point:

Going to a popular vote system will not make CA that much more of a competitive state on a Presidential level and will definitely not result in folks like Romney and Obama visiting the state that much more often than they currently do.

You seem to think going to a popular vote would make CA more of a swing state and it's just not the case.

Mrtraveler01: Ned Stark: Mrtraveler01: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: The fundamentally broken system has mostly returned results that superficially appear correct, so why change it?

How is actually electing a person who would of won the popular only a "superficially appearance"? Man you just make stupid shiat up. You just don't want to admit that it matches so often so you at BS qualification to spin the reality of the situation that you wish to ignore.

"would have won" is suspicious. The EC itself distends voting and campaigning drastically. People on the bottom half of a safe state may just stay home. Everyone on the top or bottom of a safe state is fundamentally disenfranchised. A million more california votes mean jack shiat to Obama so he doesnt need to cater to their interests at all. Conversely, flordinians age gonna get their balls washed by both teams.

Even with the popular vote, CA is a safe state for the Democrats on a Presidential level.

Obama won the state 61%-37%



Face it, it's not the fact that the Republican voters in CA are disenfranchised, it's just that there aren't enough of them to counter all the Democrat voters out there.

You may think you're just being disenfranchised by the system but the reality is that voters like you are a minority in California. It's like the people across the rivers in IL who complain how even though 95% of the counties vote Republican, the Democrats always win because Chicago always votes Democrat. Well it's not because the system it's unfair, it's just that there are more voters in Chicago to cancel out your Republican vote.

Did you miss the bit about California was about how it makes the democrats there have less of a voice? That's key.

Also, still not a republican.

The point is that CA is not a safe state because of the Electoral College, it's a safe state because a majority of the state already votes Democrat.

Yes, and? *my* point is being In a "safe state" won't fark you without the EC