I asked you not to go there. What I said was absolutely correct. In the 2016 election, about 3 million more citizens voted for Clinton than voted for Trump.
You wrote that the problem with Trump's economy is that it leaves people behind. That's like saying that the problem with Trump's water is that it gets people wet. Economies leave people behind, and water gets them wet; that's what they do.
Oh, I'm quite familiar with the constitutional method of choosing the executive. So are you proposing an amendment to the treaty?
I was curious, so I read an analysis that someone did. It's possible to win the Presidency through the electoral college while only getting 23% of the votes.
#1 Clinton got nearly 66 million votes #2 Trump got nearly 63 million votes Democrats have won the popular vote for president in 6 of the last 7 lpresidential elections.
Per the constitution, there is no popular vote for the president. The president is chosen by electors appointed by the several sovereign states.
If only that's how it worked, eh? Sadly for democrats, it's not. There's the electoral college, and the popular vote is meaningless.
That's got to bother you. Does that bother you? Tell us about how you feel about that? I'll tell you how that makes me feel. It makes me feel the way I feel when I drop a charging boar that out weighs me. No arsenal is complete without an electoral college.
The popular vote is nothing more or less than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. I much prefer our republic.
Yes. The EC is heavily weighted against Democratic candidates. In 6 of the last 7 presidential elections Dems has the majority of the votes. The EC gave Republicans 2 additional victories in that time - one to Bush and one to Trump. Once Texas flips it will probably become a more popular issue among Republicans - lol!
So which 38 states do you think will ratify an amendment that reduces their political power in the treaty?
It's heavily weighted against democrats because they tend to clump themselves in democratic strongholds. The real worry isn't the electoral college for republicans. The constitutional amendment we really need is a way to bow out of the union. Wouldn't everybody like that? California could send that idiot they have for a governor to simply inform the federal government that California no longer wants to be part of the union. Texas and Florida could do the same, and suddenly, things start looking a whole lot different. Pretty soon, the federal government would have to take into account keeping whats left of the union together, and that would mean reducing the power of the federal government. I would totally be in favor of that. Would you?
No amendment necessary for any of the several sovereign states to leave the treaty. They just leave. There's nothing in the treaty that says they may not do so.
The popular vote IS a measure of the weight added in favor of tiny states - which are allocated a disproportionate influence. Today, we give the weight of millions of votes to smalll states - in addition to the weight of the votes they already have.
So which 38 of the several sovereign states do you think will ratify an amendment that reduces their political power?
The EC isn't a treaty. I don't even see the EC as the larger of the several serious problems we have with elections. You need to notice that I haven't attacked you here in any way. Please try to follow along in the discussion.