Crazy prediction...... #1 Democrats impeach Trump in the fall/early winter. November, December, or January. They don't even care if he gets convicted. It's timed to coincide with the campaigns. #2 The Dems running now all suck. I think even all our resident lefties here except for, Nova, realize that. Even if they don't want to say it out loud on this board. The DNC understands that too. So Hillary will be back right as Trump is impeached. The Democrats will as part of the impeachment claim the Russians helped Trump cheat Hillary and that’s why she’ll win this time. And no I’m not taking bets on it. It’s just a crazy prediction.
Are you really this obsessed with Hillary that she haunts your dreams? Holy crap dude, gets some help. Oh, and it would be a huge gift for trump to have Hillary come in to depress voter turnout for the dems. The DNC is not trying that path. Still, get some help with your Hillary derangement syndrome.
Mutual interests sometimes come about when dealing with Russia. We can pull out of Syria without handing Putin the keys.
You're the one who suggested we could pull out of Syria without hand Putin the keys. Presumably you have some idea of how we might accomplish this. What is it?
Seeing Ohio in light blue gives me a tiny glimmer of hope. I don't want to put too much into it, but I would like to believe that the Democrats can swing it back this way.
what I find amusing about that map is if Trump loses the electoral vote but wins the popular vote if any Trump voters mention that the electoral college system is unfair the dems will SHUT IT DOWN with epic speed and not a bit of irony. Am I wrong?
Yeah but how many of those disapprovals are "I don't like the job he's doing but I'll vote for literally Putin before a Democrat"?
What makes geographical positioning the criteria that deserves affirmative action when it comes to political representation? Why not base the electoral college on racial background? Why not base the electoral college on gender balance? Why not base the electoral college on income, so that the poor have more representation? In the connected modern world those distinctions cause a bigger difference in what people need from their head of state than geographical location.
Because rural areas would lose representation and their would always be a Democrat in office. I know that’s what you want, but not everyone wants.
There have been a total of five elections where the President has won the electoral college vote, but not the popular vote. Depending upon what your opinions of those five Presidents are, they range from either forgettable to unmitigated disasters. While we can't know what their opponents would have done while in office, at least in the case of the two who won via the EC in the 21st century, we can say for certain that there are things that they would not have done. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and Hillary wouldn't have said "There's very fine people on both sides" after Nazis marched through the streets of Charlottesville and murdered a person. Right now, a President is elected because of the actions of a couple of swing states. If you're, for example, a Republican in Orange county, CA, your vote for a Republican Presidential candidate is meaningless. Eliminating the EC puts portions of every state in play, no matter your party, or how the majority of the population of that state tends to vote. It forces candidates of all parties to change their message and where they campaign. No longer can a Democratic candidate, for example, take the votes of California for granted. Since a low turnout there could be wiped out by a large turnout in Texas of Republican voters. Additionally, it means that a third party Presidential candidate stands a chance of getting noticed and garnering more votes than they do now. Which means that in subsequent elections they could get enough votes to win the Presidency. And just by being able to raise their party's profile in the Presidential election, it can help their party win seats in down-ballot elections, even if they don't take the Presidency. Finally, and most importantly, it'll increase voter turnout for all political parties. Which is a good thing.
Hey, @The Night Monkey, if you're going to bitch that people don't watch the videos you post, then don't tag someone's post with a TLDR. I can read faster than people speak, so an article, or even a post, is way more worth my time than a video, regardless of subject. Maybe you can't read faster than people speak, I don't know. I took a speed-reading course when I was younger, so I can read faster than most people.
If we did keep the electoral college, we'd have to change how we handle the electors. Right now, where I live, we have a sheriff who is one of the electors, and he's a "Support Trump or you're UnAmerican" kind of guy, and the people around here eat that shit up. He's in trouble for corruption, and so why does he have a vote that can override the direct will of the majority population? Someone once told me the Electoral College exists to prevent a populist candidate from becoming President. If that's true, it fucking failed like a football bat.
Reminder of what the question was: Saying you can't change it a thing because then it would change is a non-answer.
Leftists: “Let’s change the electoral college to the popular vote, then a republican wins, let’s change the popular vote back to the electoral college” sound about right?
Then what do you have against the idea of elections being won by the candidates favored in places where lots of people live?
