iclfan2;1824930 wrote: Also, just because the Federal Government has too much power right now doesn't mean people want it that way, nor should it stay that way.

O-Trap;1824874 wrote:I mean, sleeper isn't exactly a liberal. His vote for Clinton, as has been stated frequently on here, was a begrudged one.



Correct, but the number of those votes in densely-populated areas is greater. As such, the densely populated areas will get the attention, because there are more of those votes to "win" in those areas. In the example I used before, the entire state of Wyoming only has about 600,000 voters across the state, and yet, LA County has over 10 million. Do you think the candidates are going to campaign in Wyoming at all, or are they going to focus on the location and needs of the people in LA County?

The EC doesn't allow a person to campaign in only the metropolitan areas. It forces them to address needs all over the country, including the regions that aren't as densely populated.

Each individual's interests should matter as much as their vote. With a popular vote, they wouldn't.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824937 wrote:uh.. its gradually increased overtime.. its never given back. I think you're in for a world of disappointment if you don't think it will continue to grow.

sleeper;1824941 wrote:Candidates don't campaign in Wyoming now. They also don't campaign in LA county for different reasons.

They build their campaign on the selection of issues that affect 'swing states'; ignoring entirely building a platform that represents all Americans since every vote counts. The EC is just another layer that doesn't serve any real purpose other to generate discussion on its merits. It's inefficient for 2016.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824937 wrote:uh.. its gradually increased overtime.. its never given back. I think you're in for a world of disappointment if you don't think it will continue to grow.

queencitybuckeye;1824956 wrote:Can't argue this, but the results would make it hard to argue that this is a good thing. Not sure why we would take additional steps in that direction.

fish82;1824953 wrote:Recounting 125 million votes would probably be a little inefficient as well.

queencitybuckeye;1824956 wrote:Can't argue this, but the results would make it hard to argue that this is a good thing. Not sure why we would take additional steps in that direction.

sleeper;1824958 wrote:If the off tail event you need a recount it would be a pain.

However, when the spread of votes is tallied nationally, the margin of winning will likely have greater volatility and the need for a recount will be even less. One of the reasons recounts are needed is that the margins in states are tiny and a few votes here and there DO matter. Nationally, this wouldn't be an issue. Do you think we would need a recount of 125 million votes in this election? HRC is crushing it.

fish82;1824969 wrote:If HRC was "crushing it," she'd be working on her transition, and I wouldn't be putting new hardwood floors in my entire house with my prediction market winnings.

Carry on. :laugh:

sleeper;1824958 wrote:If the off tail event you need a recount it would be a pain.

However, when the spread of votes is tallied nationally, the margin of winning will likely have greater volatility and the need for a recount will be even less. One of the reasons recounts are needed is that the margins in states are tiny and a few votes here and there DO matter. Nationally, this wouldn't be an issue. Do you think we would need a recount of 125 million votes in this election? HRC is crushing it.

sleeper;1824975 wrote:Yeah because that's what I meant. HRC is going to win the popular vote by ~2 million votes. There would be no recount in this case.

sleeper;1824975 wrote:Yeah because that's what I meant. HRC is going to win the popular vote by ~2 million votes. There would be no recount in this case.

sleeper;1824975 wrote:Anyways, we get Trump; probably the biggest moron to ever take office.

CenterBHSFan;1824977 wrote:I think your argument would carry more weight if we rolled back 30 years and longer, to a point in time when the US wasn't in such a politically polarized environment. But in this day and age when Americans are addicted to free things and wanting more free things, the larger cities would indeed win out over vast areas of the population.
Not to mention that the fear mongering/accusations would ramp up to the point where it's very possible that widespread violence would occur.

fish82;1824980 wrote:Considering the semi-credible reports of up to 3 million non-citizens casting ballots, I can assure you that there most certainly would be.



Okay?

CenterBHSFan;1824979 wrote:Los Angeles, a predictable democrat city, alone would have put Clinton over the edge of winning the population vote. That's... not good.

sleeper;1824983 wrote:Predictably Democrat because if you are a Republican you don't even bother voting because California is going to be D anyway.

I wish there was some way all voices could be heard regardless of worrying about what your neighbor votes...They could call it "Democracy".

Wolves of Babylon;1824984 wrote:Who cares?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

sleeper;1824985 wrote:People with a heart and a brain.

Wolves of Babylon;1824986 wrote:I didnt vote for either candidate but go ahead and tell me how Hilary would have been a great president

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

QuakerOats;1824991 wrote:Daily Reminder:

Hillary will never be president.

QuakerOats;1824989 wrote:Only 1,500 Bigleague T-shirts left; and 6,100 MAGA hats left .........better order yours today.

sleeper;1824994 wrote:They should hand them out free. Make it really easy to spot an idiot.