The Right Scoop
The US is not a Democracy it's a Republic. In a Democracy the people directly make policy we have representatives (as they are) who represent us. I'm no expert on this but as long the the left holds sway over public opinion we do not want the popular vote electing anyone. It's bad enough that's how we get our representatives.
Here's an interesting article about the difference.
Eric,
The electoral college is not the problem. The problem is too many people trust the government more than they trust themselves. They then complain when those who are self-reliant succeed and they do not. They fail to understand the paradox of their thinking. I am beginning to believe our education system is the problem.
Oh, my, no! It would be terrible if those big liberal states had an equal say in selecting a president! Keep it like it is, where a conservative Montana vote is worth three of those liberal Californians. A fair election could destroy conservative control of the US.
And having to flood ALL the states with money could bankrupt even the Kochs! ( wait, no, maybe not. Those guys are obscenely rich. )
I hate to break it to ya, but Soros...whose puppet the Imposter is and equally you are...is far more wealthy than the Koch brothers. Anarchy would ensue if the vote depended on the popular vote. You are really ignorant, a true liberal troll.
The solution is to do it by percentage which I believe Nebraska does. In other words if 40% of the people voted for Romney, say from CA, then he should get 40% of the electoral vote.
If it won't be done by percentage then it should stay as it is. However in a nation this vast ask yourself why we have things such as 'swing' states.
Maine and Nebraska use a congressional district winner system.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Shows just exactly how dumb the country is getting then. I will not now nor will I ever support popular vote and I will actively work against it.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
" So how can we beat ALL those problematic people who vote for Democrats? Do we change the Electoral College? But what if all those people in California come out and vote in droves, I mean, in DROVES? And all those people in New York? How do we GET AROUND all those TROUBLESOME citizens?
Dirtier campaign? Better stealth suppression? Drones? Better spray tans? Ban the word "rape" and "rich" during campaigns? Longer and more TV commercials? More billionaires? Foreign billionaires? Drugs in their kool-aid? FOX-News from the pulpit? I know! Free stuff!!"
A dishonest and politically motivated press is a bigger threat to our freedom then any outside threat has ever been. Combine that with the stupidignorantlazygreedy electorate we currently have (the 47%), we're doomed as a free nation.
Just divide Texas and Alaska into 10 smaller States so the red States can compete with the NE City States getting two Senators. As good as any idea... Or why not just get rid of Big Government handouts... More ideas but getting tired now.
As a Republican in Washington state I feel my vote did not count. Do away with the electoral college.
As a Republican in Washington state I feel my vote does not count. Do away with the electoral college.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by states).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions (including Washington) with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
I'm in the same boat. It's a major tragedy when 1 or 2 counties control an entire state. Fortunately, King CountySeattle is ground zero.
I don't think we should get rid of the electoral college. If we did, Conservatives would need to find a different place to live - the country would go full on socialist based off the north east vote.
Without the ELECTORAL COLLEGE the campaign would have to spread the million of dollars over more than just 5/7 'swing' states..
Face reality. The fact is the demographics of America are changed.
I do not listen to the man but Michael Savage was right.
Borders , Language and Culture.
We lost it and you can not get it back. Tweaking the election process will not restore America to something it is no longer.
A good portion of today's immigrants could care less about America. They are just here to take.
The blame goes back a long way, the barn door has been wide open for decades, but this idiot that was just reelected will accelerate the fall as he weakens America in practically every way.
We were too lazy in defending our culture, now we have none. Kids in school now do not even learn how we became the greatest nation on earth, where we came from.
When you do not know where you came from and how you got to where you are now , you have no idea where you are going or how to get there.
Socialism sounds fine to a person that knows nothing about it.
History repeats itself.
I'm only just beginning to understand the electoral college thing myself... I understand the reason that states have their own number of electoral votes... but, I kinda wish we cold divide them up more evenly... so instead of it being all about the swing states with the most EC votes it would be more about winning as many states as possible... I live in Florida so I know my vote matters... but if I lived in a "safe" state, I probably wouldn't care as much to vote... Why would they? They already know if there state is going to be red or blue... everyone already knows, so why vote?
Wow... at last some good news... Just heard on Becks Radio program that Allen West is 300 votes ahead in the recount and will be on the radio shortly to talk to Glenn about the massive voter irregularities. Thank God Allen West demanded a recount.
This is wonderful news! Does he need any money? I want to split up the country and call ourselves the United Conservative States, and take our Constitution and Declaration of Independence with us. Allen West for President.
I don’t understand why people who don’t live in the swing states feel that their vote doesn’t count. Of course their vote counts, because those in red states keep their state red by their vote! EC is one of the most important parts of the constitution, which should be kept. I am sure Eric Bolling was very happy with the EC in 2000…
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes!
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Toto, thank you for your reply. I agree with all that you are saying. But the fact is, the important things should anyway be decided at the local level. We don’t want more federal policies/laws (except those which would abolish lots of existing ones…). This should be the goal from now. Returning to what was initially intended. I was physically sick after the results on Tuesday, but now, the more I think, the more I realize that we are in a pretty good position with 30 republican governors and the majority in the House. Just build on this for 2014 and 2016.
Toto, I read some of your other posts, and I see what you are talking about. What you are describing would be a trick that would elect the president by the nationwide popular vote, without contradicting the constitution. This is not what I want. I do not want the result to accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote. This would mean pure democracy, which would end in time with the tyranny of the majority – as it is very well known. What the founders wanted was to avoid exactly this. They wanted a “federal” not a “national” constitution (see the Federalist Papers) and to be so not only formally, but in its concrete application. The Federalist Papers also say: “The immediate election of the president is to be made by the sates in their political character”. That was the intention. This means the states should not consult the results in the other states.
The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
"Eric, if the popular vote counted we would be a democracy. NOT GOOD. (3 wolves and a rabbit vote on what is for dinner) bad senerio. Rep Republic gives equal level for all. I do argree that winner take all is not the best, but states still have the final say.
Kimmy needs a little lip color, not much. She looks a little pale. (rough night?).
Still beautiful.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
I think they should add a third option... A 3-round Tag-Team "Cage Match" between the candidates and their running mates.
I am fervently against using the nationwide popular vote to determine the presidency, as all it would mean is California, NY, IL and NJ would control the election. What I would like to see is a change in how the delegates are awarded in each state. Using a system where a delegate is awarded to the candidate winning the popular vote in each House district and the two Senate delegates are awarded to the candidate winning the statewide popular vote, it truly becomes 'all politics is local' type of system. Red people in blue states and blue people in red states can now believe their voices can be heard, and flyover country can actually be represented.
Maine and Nebraska use that method. Maine and Nebraska voters prefer a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes!
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
I think it would be fun to experiment with the original method of choosing a president, before the EC--i.e., people run with or without a party affiliation, then whoever wins the majority vote is president; the second-highest vote gets to be vice-president. There would be fireworks for sure, and probably more gridlock. But at least it would keep them all in check and out of our business ;-)
Well if the taxes start going up soon in Calif. there will be more people and compaines,out of there and but we then would have more coming in from outside the US and well we know what would happen then, unless things change
California is buried deep in the crapper and it will take a miracle for the state to emerge.
Taxes are going up because the knuckleheads in my state reelect idiots and pass measures that increase taxes. The dems are always trying to raise taxes through state, county and city measures...oh and let's not forget the bonds.
The Unions found a way to finance their pensions for another two years until the next election where they will be telling us the schools need more money.
I think that we conservatives who live in liberal states like NY and CA just need to move to battleground states like OH, FL, CO, etc.
Then the liberal states would have less power in the electoral college while conservative voices would have more power in the critical states where President is ultimately decided.
...just a thought ; )
An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems "on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally. . . .
Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.
For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ."
FairVote
I'm with Sean Hannity here. If we lose the Electoral College then cities (which have huge Liberal majorities) will dictate votes and "Flyover country" will become that.
"Flyover" country is FLOWN OVER now. Politically irrelevant.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
People are people regardless of the county or state they live in. The one common denominator is that we all are Americans and each one of our votes should count. EC should not be dropped but winner takes all should. EVs should be apportioned by by popular vote by state, at least my Connecticut vote would count for a change. All states become battleground states.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
The obama phone zombies showed up in places like the NorthEast, so don't feel left out. I wanted Romney to win, for a more nefarious reason. All the obama phone zombies were threatening to riot (which i think was a means to have folks change their mind at the ballot box.). Good! Time to clean out the dregs of the population barrel. Save some tax money. Put down criminals that would have been in those crowds.
There! I said it!
![[VIDEOS] Rand Paul slams Senate for bringing Apple in for questioning over legal tax practices & vilifying them](http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/plugins/special-recent-posts/cache/MTI1MTAwbm9yYW5kcGF1bA==.jpg)
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.