Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) Proportional EV (+2 for winning the state.) Force Dems to run in red states and GOP to run in blue states.
2) I agree on the VP not deciding to verify. The count is the count. period.
1) Proportional EV (+2 for winning the state.) Force Dems to run in red states and GOP to run in blue states.
2) I agree on the VP not deciding to verify. The count is the count. period.
Any states that wants to allot their electoral votes proportionally is free to do so. Each state decides their own process/rules for how they handle EC voting.
No federal interference required. Anything the fed does that attempts to standardize all 50 states would be about as gross a violation of the 10th Amendment as can be imagined.
I already posted it once, but will repeat - Maine and Nebraska ALREADY allot a portion of their EC votes based on percentage, not winner-take-all. If those two states are doing it, then clearly fed.gov violating the Constitution is unnecessary.
how do you feel that Hitlery tried to get the electors to change their votes in 2016
popular vote means nothing
There were some progressive electors that were calling for the 'legal' electors to vote for Clinton...but they most definitely didn't try to illegally insert a bunch of fake electors....cough cough.
And I can't find Clinton's quote calling for the electors to change their votes? But I'm sure you will find one.
That doesn't indicate Hillary asking electors to change their vote.
the candidate (and then once elected) for that election is the head of the party at the time.
so if the DNC was looking to change the votes... and Hillary is the so called "head of the party" at the time...then yes she was looking to get the votes changed
We are not a democracy… we are a Constitutional Republic. As Benjamin Franklin said, “a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for supper”
Any states that wants to allot their electoral votes proportionally is free to do so. Each state decides their own process/rules for how they handle EC voting.
No federal interference required. Anything the fed does that attempts to standardize all 50 states would be about as gross a violation of the 10th Amendment as can be imagined.
I already posted it once, but will repeat - Maine and Nebraska ALREADY allot a portion of their EC votes based on percentage, not winner-take-all. If those two states are doing it, then clearly fed.gov violating the Constitution is unnecessary.
I'm fully aware that this cannot be done. The current system is a mess where only a dozen states are in play. Then again so are things like gerrymandering, lack of term limits, the 2 corrupt parties, polarization, lobbying...
The US is not democratic in any meaningful way on issues of the true elite making money. The country is run by billionaires for billionaires. They let us fight over abortion because they do not care. They let people complain because nothing will happen to change the part about the country being run by and for the billionaires.
So we come here to argue. LOL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
