GOP continues in its efforts of vote restriction.

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
I picked my words carefully and took 24 literally.
You know what he meant. Probably only half the presidents in history have gotten over 50% of the vote. Some of them don't even get to 40%, but who cares? Only 5 have been elected while losing the popular vote, twice very recently and this last time by a large margin. There is something very wrong with that.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,906
Reaction score
473
Points
83
You know what he meant. Probably only half the presidents in history have gotten over 50% of the vote. Some of them don't even get to 40%, but who cares? Only 5 have been elected while losing the popular vote, twice very recently and this last time by a large margin. There is something very wrong with that.
Only if you think the USA is or should be a Federal Democracy.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Only if you think the USA is or should be a Federal Democracy.
I think our votes should count. Maybe we would get higher than a 60% voter turn out if people's votes actually counted. It would be more understandable if the popular vote as very close, but when you lose by millions and still win, there is something very wrong with that.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,906
Reaction score
473
Points
83
I think our votes should count. Maybe we would get higher than a 60% voter turn out if people's votes actually counted. It would be more understandable if the popular vote as very close, but when you lose by millions and still win, there is something very wrong with that.
Like when Democrats didn’t complain about Gore having slightly more popular votes than Bush?
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
24 says it’s really bad if a minority of voters pick the president. Both times clinton won he had less than 50% of the vote.

The system has existed since before the Republican Party so I don’t see how they rigged it. You just don’t like losing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Damn, my intent wasn’t to put you in a box but based on the intellect of your rebuttal.....you are firmly in a one. I better give you some air holes.[emoji41]

You may be more comfortable at the kiddies table with barnburner.[emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,297
Reaction score
293
Points
83
I think our votes should count. Maybe we would get higher than a 60% voter turn out if people's votes actually counted. It would be more understandable if the popular vote as very close, but when you lose by millions and still win, there is something very wrong with that.
It might turn out differently than you think. If you're a conservative in California (or New York), how important do you think your vote is in the popular vote? You know there's no way on the planet that a GOP candidate is ever going to carry your state, what's the point? Hillary won by 3-4 million votes and won California and New York by over 6 million. So Trump carried the overall popular vote accumulated in 48 states.

Still confused as to why so many people are comfortable with California and New York deciding what's best for them. The Dem party is the party of NY and California at this point. Personally, I don't want their ideology deciding what's best for me
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
It might turn out differently than you think. If you're a conservative in California (or New York), how important do you think your vote is in the popular vote? You know there's no way on the planet that a GOP candidate is ever going to carry your state, what's the point? Hillary won by 3-4 million votes and won California and New York by over 6 million. So Trump carried the overall popular vote accumulated in 48 states.

Still confused as to why so many people are comfortable with California and New York deciding what's best for them. The Dem party is the party of NY and California at this point. Personally, I don't want their ideology deciding what's best for me
LOLOLOLOLOL you completely contradict yourself in those two statements. The whole argument is that as a republican in California your vote doesn't count under the current system, but in a popular vote your vote would count just the same as any other vote whether you are a democrat in the deep south or a republican living in NYC.

And if you go to a popular vote where very vote actually counts then I think we would see a much larger turn out. How many republicans in Cali do you think stayed home because their vote didn't count? And in the same way how many Ds stayed home assuming Clinton would already win? 60% of voters voted, that is very sad.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Like when Democrats didn’t complain about Gore having slightly more popular votes than Bush?
I never said they didn't. Try to stay on point, do you honestly think it makes sense as a voter when a person wins while losing by millions of votes?
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,455
Reaction score
173
Points
63
I never said they didn't. Try to stay on point, do you honestly think it makes sense as a voter when a person wins while losing by millions of votes?
Yes. That is the system we have setup and there are reasons behind it. Everyone knows it ahead of time. Quit whining.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,297
Reaction score
293
Points
83
I never said they didn't. Try to stay on point, do you honestly think it makes sense as a voter when a person wins while losing by millions of votes?
20% of the people in the US voted for Hillary and 19.4% voted for the Trumpster. No doubt, this was a major travesty.

I really don't think we need to get into how campaign strategies are determined by the rules of the game. With the existing rules of the game, the Trumpster won in a landslide. Change the rules of the game, the strategies change, along with a litany of other things likely. Hillary was a terrible candidate that ran a terrible campaign. It's hard to feel sorry for her or the DNC. Incompetence all around.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
20% of the people in the US voted for Hillary and 19.4% voted for the Trumpster. No doubt, this was a major travesty.

I really don't think we need to get into how campaign strategies are determined by the rules of the game. With the existing rules of the game, the Trumpster won in a landslide. Change the rules of the game, the strategies change, along with a litany of other things likely. Hillary was a terrible candidate that ran a terrible campaign. It's hard to feel sorry for her or the DNC. Incompetence all around.
100% agree, hated hilldawg. See my other post above, that's the one that was meant for you.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Yes. That is the system we have setup and there are reasons behind it. Everyone knows it ahead of time. Quit whining.
I'm not whining. I didn't vote for Hillary so I'm not a sore loser like sporty. Systems are changed and improved every day. Why can't this obviously broken system be changed and/or improved? I want something that is fair for every citizen.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
You know what he meant. Probably only half the presidents in history have gotten over 50% of the vote. Some of them don't even get to 40%, but who cares? Only 5 have been elected while losing the popular vote, twice very recently and this last time by a large margin. There is something very wrong with that.
He made it seem like it's unfair if a minority of the voters pick the president. As you said, that's what has happened most of the time. As you also said, who cares. It can't be taken as anything but sour grapes. Obviously, there are large states that are overwhelmingly Democrat on the coasts, and too bad, they don't get to decide. You can have your universal health care and whatever other progressive policies you want, you don't get to control the rest of us.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
He made it seem like it's unfair if a minority of the voters pick the president. As you said, that's what has happened most of the time. As you also said, who cares. It can't be taken as anything but sour grapes. Obviously, there are large states that are overwhelmingly Democrat on the coasts, and too bad, they don't get to decide. You can have your universal health care and whatever other progressive policies you want, you don't get to control the rest of us.
It's funny when Republicans keep saying "large population states like Cali and NY don't get to decide the election" when I'm pretty sure Texas is the 2nd most populated state and Florida may be up there too. Cali is by far the largest but what a dumb take when a Red state is #2.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,906
Reaction score
473
Points
83
It's funny when Republicans keep saying "large population states like Cali and NY don't get to decide the election" when I'm pretty sure Texas is the 2nd most populated state and Florida may be up there too. Cali is by far the largest but what a dumb take when a Red state is #2.
Yeah, Texas is a Red state, but not nearly as disproportionately as California and New York. Same with other large metropolitan city-states, like Massachusetts and Illinois. 4 states, 8 Dem Senators, and not likely to change anytime soon.

Trump won Florida, but Florida is a purple state. It is a more representative cross-section of the US, unlike Cali, NY, Illinois, and Massachusetts or Texas.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Yeah, Texas is a Red state, but not nearly as disproportionately as California and New York. Same with other large metropolitan city-states, like Massachusetts and Illinois. 4 states, 8 Dem Senators, and not likely to change anytime soon.

Trump won Florida, but Florida is a purple state. It is a more representative cross-section of the US, unlike Cali, NY, Illinois, and Massachusetts or Texas.
So my point is made, the 2nd largest state is a red state, so another republican talking point on the subject is nonsense. What other excuses can Rs come up with to keep the EC. So far the "we can't allow two states on the coasts to decide the election" is nonsense.
 

Go4

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
3,477
Reaction score
73
Points
48
All this from the biggest pu$$y on gh. In Minnesota. In the world.
if gopherjake is the biggest pu$$y on gh/minnesota/world, at least we know your hero will gladly grab him.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,906
Reaction score
473
Points
83
So my point is made, the 2nd largest state is a red state, so another republican talking point on the subject is nonsense. What other excuses can Rs come up with to keep the EC. So far the "we can't allow two states on the coasts to decide the election" is nonsense.
I guess my post didn’t register with you. California is far more disproportionate Democrat than any large Red state, as is New York. And a couple other largely Democrat states disproportionately represent Democrats. I’m not sure why that doesn’t make sense to you that this minority of states would significantly increase their electoral influence if the US was a Federal Democracy. That is and was one of the purposes of the Electoral College.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
It's funny when Republicans keep saying "large population states like Cali and NY don't get to decide the election" when I'm pretty sure Texas is the 2nd most populated state and Florida may be up there too. Cali is by far the largest but what a dumb take when a Red state is #2.
because Hillary won CA by 3.5 million votes, NY by 1.5, and Trump won TX by less than 1mm. She won by a larger VOTE margin in Massachusetts than Trump did in TX.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
I guess my post didn’t register with you. California is far more disproportionate Democrat than any large Red state, as is New York. And a couple other largely Democrat states disproportionately represent Democrats. I’m not sure why that doesn’t make sense to you that this minority of states would significantly increase their electoral influence if the US was a Federal Democracy. That is and was one of the purposes of the Electoral College.
Your point registered, it's just as stupid as the previous point. How many republicans in Cali do you think didn't vote? The only way to truly find out if it is that disproportionate is to get rid of the EC. It was like 60% democrat in Cali, that's not some huge disproportionate number. There were plenty of red states with a higher percentage voting R. There are millions of republicans in Cali, and none of their votes count, how is that fair to them? Just like there are millions of Ds in Texas and none of their votes count. California holds just over 10% of the EC votes and has just over 10% of the US population. How would they significantly increase their influence?
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
because Hillary won CA by 3.5 million votes, NY by 1.5, and Trump won TX by less than 1mm. She won by a larger VOTE margin in Massachusetts than Trump did in TX.
Maybe Texans are smarter than I give them credit for? Trump won by large margins in many states too and could have easily made up the difference from the CA and NY margins but he didn't because more Americans voted against him than for him. So why should anyone vote ever?
 
Top Bottom