Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 22
Thank goodness we didn’t elect Hillary.

Imagine ow awful that would have been.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Actually you should thank the Democratic National Committee who rigged the process to nominate a person 2016 disliked by more people than those thinking her qualified.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
Actually you should thank the Democratic National Committee who rigged the process to nominate a person 2016 disliked by more people than those thinking her qualified.

She got the majority of the votes cast. Thus, she was PREFERRED by the number of people who thought her qualified.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I know several people who did not vote in the election period. I know of others who voted only for offices other than President. Hillary was a lot of things, but loved and wanted by 75% of the people calling themselves Democrats is my view isn't one of them.

When people mess with systems, they sometimes cause unintended consequences. In 1987 Democrats in the Senate decided to take retribution on a former solicitor general of the United States for following a lawful. This act started a this for that fight leading to Harry Reid's decision to change the Senate Rules for Judicial appointments more than 20 years later.

Choices have consequences.
Politics ain't beanbagging.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
Actually you should thank the Democratic National Committee who rigged the process to nominate a person 2016 disliked by more people than those thinking her qualified.

The nominating process was not “rigged.” More to the point, the DNC has very little to do with the Primaries. Those are run by each state individually Which is why some are open primaries, some are closed. Some are a mixture. Some have open caucuses, some have closed caucuses. Hillary won every single jPrimary Election but one, where she was extremely close. Most were significant victories. Bernie won some, not all caucuses - which are arguably the *least* democratic way to select a candidate.

It’s hard to believe some sore losers are still complaining about this.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
It’s hard to believe some sore losers are still complaining about this.

Truly.

And as if Bernie would have garnered anywhere near Hillary’s total votes in the general.

Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
goofy you are correct DNC has little to do with Primaries. And Hillary did get more votes than anybody else in primaries. She also got those pesky Super Delegates. Those and the filling of DNC positions by Wasserman-Schultz where hardly processes designed to express the will of voters as opposed the desires of the Dems in office.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"She got the majority of the votes cast. Thus, she was PREFERRED by the number of people who thought her qualified. "

First, you assume she was 'qualified'.

Second, we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the STATES are respected and the STATES participate in the election. Otherwise, candidates would only have to campaign in five states to get elected and everyone else is irrelevant.

And no, she was not' preferred'. Many just voted "D" because that's all they knew and were promised goodies (unions, school teachers, truckers, etc) they hoped to collect. You know, kill the charter schools so UNION teachers can dictate public school education policies. Make sure only UNION labor gets used everywhere and kill all the 'right to work' laws around the country. Yep....dems.... the scourge of the country.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Many just voted "D" because that's all they knew"

And many voted "R" for the same reason. 'Twas always so.

Vermonter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Many just voted "D" because that's all they knew"

And many voted "R" for the same reason. 'Twas always so.

Vermonter


Why do you try to reason with the scurvy dog? Avast! He should walk the plank!

CNC
... Yes, it's national Talk Like a Pirate day!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Too bad the Russian interference on behalf of Bernie Sanders was insufficient to beat Clinton, right? Poor Russians, having to work even harder to elect Trump.

Sorry, but not sorry... having the Russians on your candidate's side was never a selling point for me. And the persistent whining of his rabid fans has not endeared him to anyone.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Rakka7 if the comment below is intended for me, you might be interested in knowing I really don't care much for Bernie either - unless the alternative is Trump. I really dislike Hillary.

the persistent whining of his rabid fans has not endeared him to anyone
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And they're doing it again this time around.

It's at least arguable that berners are worse than trumpers.

Wessex
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
GWPotter: I really dislike Hillary.

Why do you dislike Hillary? I have asked this question of a number of people, and no one has ever me a sensible answer. Is it her voice? Sure,y not her looks (She is not ugly, nor is she a particularly well-aged blonde.)

I hated the way she handled Trump in the debates. To allow him to walk around behind her shooting off is mouth was horrible, and IMHO cost her the election. I mean, if she can't handle that, how will she handle a Kim or a Putin, or an ayatollah? But I bear her no personal animus.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Why do you dislike Hillary?"

Benghazi.....

Scoobie Doo.... do..doo...doo....

Hubbie Pedophophile Bill.....

Epstein connection? Certainly hubby Bill.....

Scumbag Bill...and Monica.....oh, and he didn't have 'sex'...... if you believe that I got a bridge to sell you.....

Spoiled rich kid.....

white water....

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Cliff,

You are not the only one who has never received a sensible or coherent response from anyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton.

I'm really not being snarky, but how do you think she should have handled trump's looming behind her during the debates?

Whatever she did, she would likely have been criticized worse than for ignoring it. I thought it took admirable self control to ignore it.

Had she berated him, she would have been berated as shrill and over-reacting. Politely asking him to move would almost certainly not have been been productive.

Had she asked the moderators to do something, she would have been berated as weak.

Had it been me, I would probably have turned around, looked him up and down contemptuously, said "Go back to your own podium," and then turned back to my podium and said something like "garbage always looks, smells, and sounds like garbage." But then, I'm speaking from hindsight and not in the moment.

Wessex
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Had it been me, I would probably have turned around, looked him up and down contemptuously, said "Go back to your own podium," and then turned back to my podium and said something like "garbage always looks, smells, and sounds like garbage." But then, I'm speaking from hindsight and not in the moment.

Wessex


That sounds like my response. Then say "I am speaking now. You may speak when it's your turn." Then later, "Did your parents teach you no manners at all?"

Trying to ignore him was a mistake.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wessex: Whatever she did, she would likely have been criticized worse than for ignoring it. I thought it took admirable self control to ignore it.

Had she berated him, she would have been berated as shrill and over-reacting. Politely asking him to move would almost certainly not have been been productive.

Had she asked the moderators to do something, she would have been berated as weak.



When you hate someone, the way they hold their fork drives you crazy. But your best friend can spill his plate in your lap and you don't mind.


In reference to the OP, I do recall intercst saying more than once that he supported Trump because he knew what a disaster DJT was going to be, and that his administration would severely harm the Republican Party image in the general public's eyes. The 2018 mid-term elections were a partial vindication of that view. And my hunch is that the younger generations are skewing left because of the last four years.

But will the Republican Party diminish, as intercst once wanted? Perhaps, assuming the next election is run fair and square.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
In reference to the OP, I do recall intercst saying more than once that he supported Trump because he knew what a disaster DJT was going to be, and that his administration would severely harm the Republican Party image in the general public's eyes. The 2018 mid-term elections were a partial vindication of that view. And my hunch is that the younger generations are skewing left because of the last four years.

That’s true, and I made the same prediction. That said, the amount of damage being done *far* surpasses any benefit that might be achieved. So the Dems took the House, yippee. Even if we get back the Senate and the White House, the Republicans have taken the Supreme Court for the next 20 years. Given the ideologues Trump has packed onto the court(s), any “Truly progressive” legislation is likely to be countermanded by the court for the next generation.

Want to encourage voting? Nope, that’s a state’s issue. Want to legalize abortion? Nope, that’s a state’s issue. Want to maintain Obamacare? Oh, wait, that’s now a tax, so it’s unconstitutional.

I have a SIL who voted for Bernie in the general (write-in) because she “just couldn’t stand Hillary.” In a swing state. I have another who voted Libertarian, also in a swing state. The stupidity compounds. In this system you get a choice of two, full stop. Pick the better, or the least worst. Anything else is saying “I don’t care, it’s all the same”, when the last four years so clearly demonstrate it’s not all the same, not even close.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
I will never forgive Hillary for missing a defining 'I knew John Kennedy' moment when she let Trump stalk around behind her:

'What are you doing back there, Don.........getting in position to grab at my pu$$y'?



And then there would have been people screaming that she was "so nasty".

Ask any woman. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Why do you dislike Hillary?

Primarily, she was entirely too calculating. It made her appear inauthentic; too political.

Thus, when matched up against someone that was nearly the polar opposite (Trump can barely think past his next tweet), it made quite the contrast.

The reason why many of us preferred Bernie, even when he did not match our politics was because he seemed real. He seemed to really believe in his positions. He seemed honest. If asked about the top 10 words to describe Hillary, "honest" would not likely be in the top 10.

That doesn't make her unqualified; she was clearly competent, but 2016 and perhaps in 2020, there was and might be a rejection of that calculus.

Compare her to Warren, who doesn't give off that same vibe.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thx for this post, Hawk. You described my feelings, too.

I voted for Bernie in my primary in 2016, but I wanted Warren or Sherrod Brown or, well, someone who called themselves a Democrat, full stop.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I agree Hillary's "vibe" is different. Her voice is a bit annoying, she's not attractive. But none of that should matter. I disagreed with her on some policy stuff (no surprise since she was consulting Kissinger, whom I think should be in prison for war crimes - there's even a book about it). But clearly she was the most qualified candidate in 2016, and she arguably would be again if she were running in 2020. She is one smart lady.

I do get your point about "seem real". Though I slightly disagree. She was "real", but just more business-like. Less "chummy". You could see yourself having lunch with her and talking politics, but not really chatting about family or other "normal" stuff. Of course, I don't know that I could see lunch with Bernie any differently. Except he might knock over his water glass with his gesticulations. :-)

Joe you could see having lunch with and not talking politics at all. Sports, family, life experiences...you could see that with Joe.

I'd not even sit at a table that had Trump seated, unless I was allowed to punch him in the face first.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
He seemed honest.

So we got the polar opposite, and the least qualified candidate in the history of candidates.

I suspect that when the next USSC justice is selected that Obamacare will be found unconstitutional and will be shredded. The only tiny glimmer of justice I see is that some people of means who have been taking advantage of Obamacare and crowing about the incredibly low rates they have benefited from, even though they could clearly afford more, might finally see the error of their ways in voting for Trump.

There was one guy like that, can’t remember his name at the moment, it’s right on the tip of my tongue. Oh wait, there it is in the thread title!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
If asked about the top 10 words to describe Hillary, "honest" would not likely be in the top 10.

If asked about the top 10 words to describe Trump, "honest" would not likely be in the top 10,000.

So what are you trying to say? That Clinton wasn't honest enough, so you'll take someone even less honest? If honesty is important to you, your only choice in 2016 was Clinton. You could (and apparently did) vote for some 3rd party candidate. But those candidates have never had any real chance of winning.

We're in the same position now. If honesty is important to you, your only viable choice is Biden. And this year, voting for a 3rd party candidate is even more of a vote against Biden. If you don't want Trump, Biden must win big. Every state that is remotely close is a potential state for Trump to file suit about. And he WILL sue in every state he doesn't lose by a landslide. He is not going to leave gracefully. (There's another word that's not in the top 10,000.)

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If asked about the top 10 words to describe Trump, "honest" would not likely be in the top 10,000.

The question wasn't about Trump. Don't make me go all David Krail...

So what are you trying to say?

I was answering the question asked. Period. David Krail intensifying.

If honesty is important to you, your only choice in 2016 was Clinton

Again, the question was not about Hillary vs Trump, it was about why some people disliked Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnP5iDKwuwk

You could (and apparently did) vote for some 3rd party candidate.

Nope, stop inferring something not implied. I must have really triggered you with my reply.

If honesty is important to you, your only viable choice is Biden.

No one asked about Biden, "Stay on Target."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
First, you assume she was 'qualified'.

That’s true, I did assume that. US Senator for eight years. Ran the State Department for four years. Graduate of Yale Law School. Headed up a dozen public service campaigns while First Lady of Arkansas and of the United States.

Opposite a guy with no government experience, who bankrupted most of the businesses he’s been involved with, brags about assaulting women, but, to his credit, did have a successful reality TV show for a while.

So yeah, I’m going to go with “qualified.”
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The question wasn't about Trump.

The question was roughly, what don't you like about Mrs. Clinton. And your answer was her lack of honesty.

I'm just following your answer to a logical conclusion. If her lack of honesty bothers you, Trump's should bother you much more - an order of magnitude (or three) more.

Don't make me go all David Krail...

Who is David Krail?

I was answering the question asked. Period.

Yes, you did. And I'm pointing out the implications of that answer.

David Krail intensifying.

Again with this Krail guy. Who is he? No, really. Who is he? I did a google search and came up empty.

Again, the question was not about Hillary vs Trump, it was about why some people disliked Hillary.

Agreed. But now that you've answered the question, I'm showing you the consequences of your answer.

Nope, stop inferring something not implied.

I may be mixing up people and threads here. I am quite sure that someone commented that they didn't vote for Mrs. Clinton in 2016, but still voted for a woman. If that was not you, I apologize. I will try to look further for that thread and make a better apology, or remove my apology altogether, as warranted.

I must have really triggered you with my reply.

Yes, you did - a bit. Our country is being ravaged by intellectual dishonesty. And that makes me very angry. I try to follow RBG's lead on this kind of thing, and re-channel that anger into better arguments for my point - and better wit. I am not always successful in that endeavor.

No one asked about Biden, "Stay on Target."

Right now, Biden IS the ultimate target - specifically, getting him elected to the Presidency. And I am again following up on your answer to the original question (what didn't you like about Mrs. Clinton) and pointing out how I see your answer applying to the current choice before us - Biden or Trump.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who is David Krail?

Ha! Lousy autocorrect. That should have been Davish Krail

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Davish_Krail

"Stay on target..."
?Davish to Jon Vander, during Gold Squadron's trench run at the Death Star
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Nope, stop inferring something not implied.

I found the thread and post I was thinking about when I wrote that. You did not write the post. I apologize for my error here.

—Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ha! Lousy autocorrect. That should have been Davish Krail

Another DYAC moment. I feel your pain.

And while I'm enough of a Star Wars fan to immediately recognize the scene, I'm not enough of one to know the character's name. I believe he serves the same purpose as the semi-anonymous red shirts in a Star Trek away mission: Deliver a memorable line, then die.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Second, we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the STATES are respected and the STATES participate in the election.Otherwise, candidates would only have to campaign in five states to get elected and everyone else is irrelevant.

Isn't that exactly what it comes down to? We have a convoluted antiquated electoral system that lets a few key states decide the fate of our Republic. That's not as it was intended. The rest of the country is firmly polarized--blue or red and is safely ignored. The popular will of a state can be subverted by the electoral college and the majority candidate can lose because all states are not equally respected by the system and a handful have outsized importance and are overweighted. These can and have been the key to the presidency in spite of the voice of the people. Candidates are forced to court the demographic shifts in a handful of states that will get them to 270. Those states change cycle to cycle, but often come down to a few states the control the outcome of an election. This time it was WI, MI,PA. How many trips and how much time did candidates spend here in the last frenzied days of the election? A lot more time than they spent in CA, NY, ID, MO, HI, ND, SD, NB, WA, MT, etc etc etc. The electoral college is a foul force we are unfortunately stuck with that needs a solution.

We came so very close this year to disaster and Constitutional crisis because of the system coupled with the corrupt intent of the GOP candidate. But for some principled state legislatures, state officials and a handful of bipartisan judges, we would be facing four years that would destroy what remains of our Republic.

https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-pennsylvania...

"For example, some critics have said that everything hinged on me not campaigning in the Midwest," she continued. "And I suppose it is possible that a few more trips to Saginaw or a few more ads on the air on Waukesha could have tipped a couple thousand votes here and there."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-ground-game-di...

Needless to say, the election didn’t work out quite as Clinton hoped. Not only did she lose seven swing states and 100 electoral votes1 that Barack Obama had won four years earlier — she did so despite winning the popular vote. If the hallmark of a good campaign is turning out voters where you need them most, then Clinton’s failed miserably. She received almost as many votes (65.85 million) as Obama had nationwide (65.92 million). But while she earned 900,000 more votes than Obama in California and almost 600,000 more in Texas, she underperformed him in the swing states.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I may be wrong, but the Constitution doesn't restrict how states choose electors. So I do not believe it would be unconstitutional to require them to assign them proportionally, reflecting the popular vote of any given state. In which case the feds could do that, and problem solved. Or at least THAT problem solved.** Would circumvent the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

However, it should be noted that AZ -except for Clinton once in the 90s- was been solid red since 1952. And we just turned blue this election. So it can happen, and ignoring "safe" states is a mistake.

1poorguy

**Another problem Bill Maher is fond of pointing out is that you have two "Dakotas", and combined they don't reach the population of L.A., yet they get four senators between them while CA gets two. Though that is as intended by the Founders, it seems more of a problem today because of the lopsided representation it provides when you have over 300M people, and states that only have <1M get more representation than states that have 40M. But only an Amendment could change that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Another problem Bill Maher is fond of pointing out is that you have two "Dakotas", and combined they don't reach the population of L.A., yet they get four senators between them while CA gets two.

Its worse than that. You can add in Montana and Wyoming and still not get to the population of the city of Los Angeles. That's 8 Senators for those four states, while CA gets 2.

There are only 4 states with a population larger than the greater LA metro area (NY, FL, TX, and, of course, CA). You could remove the entire LA metro area from CA and CA would still be the second largest state in the union.

It is easy to overlook how sparsely some parts of the country are populated.

On the other hand, it's also important to make sure the interests of the people living in those sparsely populated areas are addressed. So I think that the founders were correct in thinking about this issue and trying to address it. And I also think that their method (2 Senators per state and the electoral college) worked pretty well for a long time.

But we are no longer the same country we were in the 18th and 19th centuries. Particularly in the beginning, we were a group of independent and individual states, who chose to band together for a common good. Today, the power of individual states is greatly lessened. On the world stage, we are a single country, not some federation of separate states. Our central government is much stronger than it was 120 years ago, and the power of the 50 states is much less.

So we have a decision to make. If we want to embrace a more powerful federal government, we need to re-think both the Senate and the electoral college. Or we could choose to reduce the power of the federal government and transfer some power back to the states, leaving the Senate and electoral college roughly as they are. I think there are good reasons for either approach. Unfortunately, each approach will benefit some in the country at the expense of others.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So I think that the founders were correct in thinking about this issue and trying to address it.

Of the original 13 colonies, which is all that existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution, none were as citified as the cities are today, and most were rural for the most part. Pennsylvania had Philadelphia, it’s true, and Massachusetts had Boston, but the Southern colonies were agriculturally based, Connecticut, and Rhode Island were seafaring (fishing), and you’re looking at Virginia and Maryland left over.

The so-called Founding Fathers could never have imagined the kind of unbalance that “rurals” bring to modern America (or vice versa, if you want to make the metropolitan side of the argument), and it is unlikely to ever change until the end of the empire, but it’s wrong, and it was *not* intentional.

Remember, this was the first democracy in almost 2000 years. They made it ups as they went along, and the first take was an utter disaster. The second take, the one we live under, still had all kinds of kinks and flaws - the 3/5 exception for slaves being one of the most notable, but also the Vice President being whoever got the 2nd most votes, the Senate being elected by State Legislatures, and a host more. Several of those issues have been corrected, but it is unlikely that “proportional representation” will ever invade the Senate, even though many states with bi-cameral legislatures have it in both houses.

Indeed, I expect the Electoral College, another well meaning blunder, will only disappear if enough states independently decide to follow the Interstate Compact and award the popular vote regardless of the state vote. Otherwise I see little hope of progress before the end of my life.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There are only 4 states with a population larger than the greater LA metro area (NY, FL, TX, and, of course, CA). You could remove the entire LA metro area from CA and CA would still be the second largest state in the union.


I think it makes sense for California to divide itself into two states. Say along the 37th parallel, to make two roughly equal size states. Well, maybe 36.5° to be well south of San Jose - sorta seems only fair to leave the San Francisco Bay area intact as it is.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The so-called Founding Fathers could never have imagined the kind of unbalance that “rurals” bring to modern America (or vice versa, if you want to make the metropolitan side of the argument), and it is unlikely to ever change until the end of the empire, but it’s wrong, and it was *not* intentional.

I think that's my point. What was written back in the 1780's, and revised a bit since then, assume a limited inequality in state populations. Yes, some were larger and some smaller, but not by the differences we see today. *** There was some legitimate concern of a tyranny by the majority, and the measures they took addressed that concern in their day.

But today, those measures now give us a tyranny by the minority. States representing a minority of the population have such outsized influence that they can control the majority. The solutions to today's problem are likely different from the solutions we came up with in the 1700s and 1800s. I firmly believe that the rights of minority points of view need some protection. We need something that will work for today, not a 200 year old solution that is no longer working.

I'm not smart enough to solve this issue. I don't know what we need to change. But we sure as shootin' need to change something.

--Peter

*** In 1800, the largest two states were VA and PA, with about 886k and 602k residents, respectively. The smallest two were DE and RI, with 64k and 69k. The largest state had 14 times the number of residents as the smallest. (BTW, these include slaves.) Today, the largest two states are CA and TX with 39.5 million and 29.0 million. The smallest two are WY and VT, at 579 thousand and 624 thousand. The largest state today has 68 times the population of the smallest.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In which case the feds could do that,

Feds CAN'T do that, because as your first sentence states, The Constitution leaves that process up to the states to decide.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Feds can create guidelines. They do it all the time for all sorts of things. I would think they could require that electors be awarded that reflects popular vote. How the states choose the actual electors would still be up to them, but they have to reflect what the voters actually want.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Feds can create guidelines. They do it all the time for all sorts of things. I would think they could require that electors be awarded that reflects popular vote. How the states choose the actual electors would still be up to them, but they have to reflect what the voters actually want.

The Feds can create guidelines on subjects that are within the power of the federal government. Many aspects of elections are not within the power of the federal government, but are reserved to the states.

States have the power to choose a winner-take-all system for electors, and the Feds can't stop them from choosing that if they want. The states are allowed to have a proportional system if they want, but the Feds cannot force them to assign their electors that way if the state prefers winner-take-all.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I would think they could require that electors be awarded that reflects popular vote.

No.

they have to reflect what the voters actually want.

That is actually what they are currently doing. If Utah has more people that vote for Trump than Biden, they award all electors to Trump. They are not required to award such based on the national popular vote, but by the state popular vote.

Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

---------

Note, states are not even required to give you a vote, much less a popular one. Each state could simply decide to let their legislature vote - which is how some states actually used to do it.

And, it has survived a SCOTUS challenge twice: McPherson v. Blacker, and of course Bush v. Gore.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Unfortunate, but OK.

So the people need to demand it. I'm not sure most people know enough about how the EC works to be annoyed or upset.

Though you would think progress would be made in all-or-nothing states by pointing out "x-million votes in CA were for Trump, but he received ZERO votes that matter; similarly in AZ all Rep votes were nullified because the Dem candidate won and took all the votes". Etc.

So probably couldn't mandate ranked voting either? Even for federal elections?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So the people need to demand it. I'm not sure most people know enough about how the EC works to be annoyed or upset.

Though you would think progress would be made in all-or-nothing states by pointing out "x-million votes in CA were for Trump, but he received ZERO votes that matter; similarly in AZ all Rep votes were nullified because the Dem candidate won and took all the votes". Etc.


It's in no one's interest to unilaterally change their own system.

In states where one party clearly predominates (like CA or MS), changing from winner-take-all to proportional electors will only help the minority party in that state. Right now, the party deep in the minority gets zero electoral votes in any close election; switching to proportional representation allows the minority to get a sizable chunk of them.

Meanwhile, the battleground states have enormous power and clout because of their role in the Presidential election. They get tons of attention paid to their issues and voters. But if they switched to proportional elector allocation, that would likely disappear. For example, both parties spend enormous amounts of money fighting for Florida's 29 electoral votes, which can make or break an election. But if everyone kind of knew that those votes were going to break 15-14 or 16-13 in every election, and all that was at state were 1 or 2 EV's, then they'd never play in our expensive media markets to the same degree.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top