I guess nobody seems to get the point that one state, one geographical anomaly, is the only reason Hillary won the popular vote. Agree with the voters of California or not, the fact remains that adding the other 49 states together gives you a Trump majority. With California providing a 3-4 million vote cushion to Hillary.
Change this to Texas providing that kind of cushion to a republican candidate and I can imagine the comments it would bring from the democrats.
If CA were split into a bunch of smaller states then our anti-Trump votes would have counted more and he would have lost the EC also.
Hey Scuzz, as a new resident is the great state of California, let me be the first to cordially invite you to go fuck yourself.
As Bill Maher pointed out yesterday, if a worthless wasteland like the Dakotas gets 4 senators, there should be 13 California’s.
I live in California. I have for over 55 years.
Good to see mature idiots are moving into the state.
If I could fuck myself I would probably never leave the house. :)
And Bill Maher is an idiot.
So do you favor the 6 state model, the 4 state model or the 3 state model. Or just the State of Jefferson?
I’m cool with the state as is but would prefer equal representation when it comes to electing our President.
I’ll just repeat my previous response: And if you pulled a comparable amount of the US population out by removing Trump states, Hillary would win the EC (for example, AL, SC, LA, KY, OK, IA, UT, MS, AR, KS, SD, ND = 77 EV and a little over 39 million people). It’s ridiculous to act like those 39 million are worth more than the ones in CA (by 40%!) simply because they are divided into more buckets.
Okay…let’s drop that.
But don’t you think it is interesting that one state, granted the most populous state and one with the world’s 8th largest economy by itself, would differ so much from the rest of the country in it’s popular vote.
Look, someone already has standing to sue the new kleptocracy
I find it comforting that there are fewer Trump supporters surrounding me than in most of the country.
Indeed. Almost as if it should be weighted higher in how its votes are counted, eh?
This year pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for any argument to retain the EC. It had one job anymore, one. And it didn’t do it. They chose Trump. It existed with the explicit purpose to prevent such an unqualified, thin skinned, vindictive, ignorant buffoon from taking office, and it failed at that task.
Disband it permanently.
Interesting perspective from Rev. Barber. He thinks we’re witnessing the start of a “Third Reconstruction”:
This same pattern of progress and backlash repeated itself during America’s Second Reconstruction — what we often remember as “the Civil Rights movement.” But we’ve glossed over this history too often. So we’re shocked by Donald Trump. We can’t make sense of what’s happening in front of us because, somehow, we’ve failed to see that this has been happening all along.
But inside this long, sad tale about America lies a roadmap for today. We must begin to think in terms of a Third Reconstruction. I believe the turmoil we are witnessing around us today is in fact the birth pangs of a Third Reconstruction.
https://thinkprogress.org/rev-barber-moral-change-1ad2776df7c#.jzvz6il2r
Well, just to play Devil’s Advocate, what would’ve happened if the Electoral College had voted against Trump?
They vote Hillary or anyone else in. Good luck with that. I would expect riots in the streets when millions of Trump supporters perceive they won, but the “rigged” system screwed them out of their pick for President.
The vote goes to the House of Representatives. They would just vote in Trump anyway.
Basically all options were bad.
And it’s not like I think you are wrong, just that this exposes the EC as a useless, fundamentally undemocratic, institution that serves absolutely zero purpose today, and that we would all be better if it ceased to exist tomorrow.
It did not serve its purpose. It is fundamentally unfit for that purpose. Sure serving said purpose would have led to a whole host of unpleasant things, but if that is the case why keep it around if it can’t do the thing it was created for.
Had the EC “overridden” the election we would probably have the worst constitutional crises in America’s history. If that was better in your mind than Trump being in office, then so be it.
What does that even mean? Is it “interesting” that KY voted so differently from the rest of the country in it’s popular vote? What about the 9 other states whose vote was more heavily Trump-leaning relative to the rest of the country than CA’s vote was Clinton-leaning? Why are the 40 million people in CA inherently more suspicious than any other group of 40 million people in the US?
For one thing…I am talking one state why you insist on talking nine. I am talking one geographical section of the country while you talk several.
Look, I really don’t give a shit about this. I have been told to “fuck myself” over bringing this up. :)
Obviously your nine state argument is more logical than my simple one state argument.
Yes, California is right. We are right about everything. We are right about being left.
CA wasn’t the only blue state. When you say differ, that’s just code for do we think CA having millions of people who voted for Hillary is unusual. No, no i don’t think that’s unusual. Why would I think that’s unusual? Guess what, it wasn’t the only state that voted Hillary, the entire west coast did…
More or less anything is preferable to Trump being office, so. . .
Well, at least you’ve finally come around :)