Trump wants Popular Vote over Electoral College

#1

roosterjbh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,188
Likes
3,927
#1
Trump pushes to swap Electoral College for popular vote - POLITICO

President Donald Trump on Thursday voiced support for doing away with the Electoral College for presidential elections in favor of a popular vote because the latter would be “much easier to win.”

The president’s support for a popular-vote presidential election came as an aside during a free-wheeling Thursday morning interview with “Fox & Friends,” the Fox News morning show he is known to watch and where he receives almost unflinchingly positive coverage.

“The electoral college is different. I would rather have the popular vote because it's, to me, it's much easier to win the popular vote

Uh, should somebody tell him the popular vote results?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#2
#2
Moron.

The EC is more important than ever with our country becoming more and more stupid every day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
#4
#4
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#7
#7
Moron.

Th EC is more important than ever with our country becoming more and more stupid every day.

Well, if he does have a legitimate concern about millions of illegals voting in California as he has alleged, then that makes this comment all the more stupid. If you are a Republican worried about illegal voting, the EC is your best friend.

No getting around it. Trump says some incredibly stupid things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#8
#8
Well, if he does have a legitimate concern about millions of illegals voting in California as he has alleged, then that makes this comment all the more stupid. If you are a Republican worried about illegal voting, the EC is your best friend.

No getting around it. Trump says some incredibly stupid things.

I will say this, he does kind of have a point. How often are the so-called flyover states ignored? All we hear about are the Battleground States during an election year.

A popular vote would or should encourage candidates to focus on all states instead of just a half dozen or so. I disagree that it would be easy, but it would certainly make a candidate have to focus on the entirety of the population rather than just trying to pull selected States.

Having said that to say this, I do support the Electoral College considering a couple of states could swing the election regardless. It's work for long enough so don't mess with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
I will say this, he does kind of have a point. How often are the so-called flyover states ignored? All we hear about are the Battleground States during an election year.

A popular vote would or should encourage candidates to focus on all states instead of just a half dozen or so. I disagree that it would be easy, but it would certainly make a candidate have to focus on the entirety of the population rather than just trying to pull selected States.

Having said that to say this, I do support the Electoral College considering a couple of states could swing the election regardless. It's work for long enough so don't mess with it.

I think popular vote would cause people to ignore the flyovers completely - or put differently, it would be one side focusing on big cities in big states and the other focusing on rural states.

All of this of course ignores the relationship between states and the Feds which is the reason to have the EC in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10
#10
Regardless will take a constitutional amendment to pass. And the states which will be diluted due to population will be required to vote yes to ratify.

So.... never ever Ever EVER going to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
I'm just trying to figure out why people want to continue dicking around with something that's worked for over 200 years.

Because the globalists need it to happen in order to get complete control of our country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
I think popular vote would cause people to ignore the flyovers completely - or put differently, it would be one side focusing on big cities in big states and the other focusing on rural states.

All of this of course ignores the relationship between states and the Feds which is the reason to have the EC in the first place.

Possibly. You could be correct if we use a place like New York or California as a guide for the whole country. Especially when a single City or a couple controls the entire state.
 
#17
#17
Possibly. You could be correct if we use a place like New York or California as a guide for the whole country. Especially when a single City or a couple controls the entire state.

California and New York and Fla would get all the attention. If you can flip California by 10% more D or less D you get 1.4 million votes (using 2016 data).

That's more than the total votes from 21 individual states (not combined; 21 states have total votes cast less than 1.4 million).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#20
#20
He’s up to something because he always plays a slight of hand trick when he is. Look over there while I do somethIng over here
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#21
#21
He’s up to something because he always plays a slight of hand trick when he is. Look over there while I do somethIng over here

Good point. He knew that Dr. Jackson would be withdrawing his nomination today. He also knows how bad E.P.A. Chief Pruitt looks right now. He could just be trying to flood the news cycle with nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#24
#24
I will say this, he does kind of have a point. How often are the so-called flyover states ignored? All we hear about are the Battleground States during an election year.

A popular vote would or should encourage candidates to focus on all states instead of just a half dozen or so. I disagree that it would be easy, but it would certainly make a candidate have to focus on the entirety of the population rather than just trying to pull selected States.

Having said that to say this, I do support the Electoral College considering a couple of states could swing the election regardless. It's work for long enough so don't mess with it.

There are valid concerns on both sides. I honestly feel the more irritating issue is what you described about only certain states being relevant. If you live in a solidly red or blue state and support the opposing party, your vote is essentially worthless. If you decide to move to a state that's solidly aligned with your party, your vote is also pretty worthless. It's the states that could flip either way where you feel your vote will actually matter. It's no wonder that there's so much voter apathy in this system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#25
#25
There are valid concerns on both sides. I honestly feel the more irritating issue is what you described about only certain states being relevant. If you live in a solidly red or blue state and support the opposing party, your vote is essentially worthless. If you decide to move to a state that's solidly aligned with your party, your vote is also pretty worthless. It's the states that could flip either way where you feel your vote will actually matter. It's no wonder that there's so much voter apathy in this system.

We aren’t a Democracy. We’re a constitutional representative Republic. Always have been from our forming documents. The fed does not derive its mandate from the people. It derives it from the states. Thus the electoral college.

And each state can decide how to allocate their electorate. Either proportional or total. The feds have no authority over that I’m pretty certain.

There is only one federal elected official. POTUS. And he is not nor ever has been elected “by the people”
 

VN Store



Back
Top