Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Any State admitted into the Union is granted the same voice as every other State, whether it be Puerto Rico, Ontario/Quebec, Eastern Alaska, or Northern California. I cannot disagree with any of that, because that is how the Constitution is written, everybody understands those rules, every other Nation can read them, they are not secret or arbitrary, and everybody knows what must be done or not done to accomplish those goals.

The Great Compromise was a part of the original Constitution. If we switch to a more fully Representative Elector, then WI and theoretical Puerto Rico each get one Elector, just as CA and RI would each get one Elector - because each of those would be one State, one member of the Union of States. I'm not really sure if you are seeing the whole picture regarding the States in the compact.

Even a State as lopsided as CA only gave 61% to Hilliary. Compare that to an actual Electoral Landslide, like Reagan winning every State except 1. If you haven't followed, most States are really fairly close to the 50-50 mark, and are more easily flipped than some folk imagine - especially if given a decade or so to shift.

Plus, some people seem to be confused about some nation in North America which supposedly is believed to be a Democracy. On The Other Hand, any reasonable educated person knows that between Mexico and Canada is a Republic called The United States of America.
I forgot to mention that this might be one reason Liberals get so feverish about banning the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, because with the Pledge, each child learns by heart that America is a Republic. There is no word of Democracy in the Pledge.

However, if you are interested in spurring the disenfranchised citizen of these Liberal bastions to come out and vote, there is one solution for you to consider.

Partial Elector Allocation version 1:
Maine and Nebraska seem to be doing it. The 2 Electors allotted to the Senate Seats are selected from the winner of the whole Statewide vote tally. But each of the Electors representing the individual Congressional Districts are selected based upon which candidate/Party won the majority within that CD. Assuming I understand that correctly.
Not only would that spur voters to get out and show their strength (CA has 14 GOP Representatives, and could presumably vote in that many Electors, plus perhaps more if Citizens thought their Vote might matter, not being Disenfranchised by all of the Illegal Alien Voters, Fraudulent Voters, and other Democrat cheating practices from LA and San Fran), but this could spur more enthusiastic 3rd Party challenges.
In the past 30 years, I do believe other Parties have won entire Congressional Districts in various States, and would have affected the Electoral College if they had those Electors.

Also, Candidates would be far more interested to visit these locales. Trump might wish to visit a strong GOP place like Orange County CA for donation cash, but he might then detour to hotly contested Congressional Districts which he has a chance of swinging his way, if it meant another EV. As it is now, there is no reason for anybody of the Dems or GOP to visit these places - they won't change the Elector count from that State, and those places don't really generate as much campaign funding as Hollywood or Orange County. Candidates from other Parties do have ample reason to visit such locations which are ignored by the 2 major Parties.

Partial Elector Allocation version 2:
I think I have heard of another system. This one allocates Electors as a percentage of the vote results.
Let's say CA has 52 Electors. 2 representing the Senators would be allocated to the Party which won the majority of the whole State, like now. Then the remaining 50 would be split up based upon the vote. Last time, Hilliary got 61.7% of the CA vote, Trump got 31.6%, Johnson got 3.37%, and Stein got 1.96%. Stein would round up to get 1 Elector, Johnson would round up to get 2 Electors, Hilliary would get at least 31 Electors, Trump would get at least 16 Electors, and that totals 50. If that did not add up to 50, then the remaining Electors would be allocated however the Law was written (or, really, interpreted).

Either way, it is not the same as overall popular vote, which the Founding Fathers absolutely fought to avoid. IIRC, the first election of Washington was by Congress, which means the same as the version #1 that I said: except the 2 Senators did not necessarily vote the same way, but otherwise the Members of Congress were merely standing in for Electors that we have now.

Either of those versions, the State winner still gets the 2 Electors allocated due to Senator Seats. That is 100 Electors. Using 2016 as an example in Version #2, the difference between Hilliary's millions of illegal votes in CA and Trump's allocation (31-16=15) would need to be overcome by Trump gaining a margin of 8 other States for the 16 Electors.

Trump got 304, Hilliary 227. There were 7 Electoral Votes for Write-Ins, not Johnson or Stein. Trump won 30 States, Hilliary was granted 20 States.
By version #2, UT would have given Trump 4, Hilliary 1 and McMullin 1. Texas would have given Johnson 1. Johnson likely would have gotten another 1 in IL. With the previously mentioned CA, that makes at least 6 Electors who would not be slated to vote for Hilliary or Trump. So since Trump had an 83 Vote margin, that deficit of 15 such Electoral Votes from CA wouldn't have changed the outcome, but the race would have been closer - and that is the key to getting that disenfranchised voter that you are talking about.

More from 2016:
TX would have given Trump 19, Hilliary 14.
IL would have given Trump 6, Hilliary 11.
NY T 9, H 17.
PA T 10, H 8.
OH T 9, H 6.
IN T 6, H 2, Johnson 1.
TN T 7, H 2.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Also, I don't see any reason that another thread needed to be made about the topic.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Version 1, copying how Nebraska and Maine do it.
The House members Elected in 2016 were 194 Dem, 241 GOP. If we were to assume these Congressional Districts also voted for Hilliary and Trump along the same lines (which are assuredly not the actual case in every instance), then this would be the Electoral tally from the State Representative portion. Add 3 from DC to Hilliary, and 60 to Trump for the 30 States he won, 40 to Hilliary for the 20 States she won, and the Electoral Vote total would have been 301 Trump, and 237 Hilliary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I do not like the idea of the House getting to decide after the election at all.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I think there are a few people here who would argue with you about my status as a liberal.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Not sure what you mean. Did you read what I've already posted?

What part of the makeup of the House are you referring to?

For instance, CA has about 12 GOP Reps and 40ish Dem Reps. So it would be reasonable to assume that the one Vote in the House that CA gets would be for Hilliary. So what? 30 States were for Trump. 20 States were granted to Hilliary. Which 6 States do you conjure would have Reps agrtee to Vote for Hilliary is their State

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Not sure what you mean. Did you read what I've already posted?

What part of the makeup of the House are you referring to?

For instance, CA has about 12 GOP Reps and 40ish Dem Reps. So it would be reasonable to assume that the one Vote in the House that CA gets would be for Hilliary. So what? 30 States were for Trump. 20 States were granted to Hilliary. Which 6 States do you conjure would have Reps agrtee to Vote for Hilliary is their State

---

That's today. What about tomorrow?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Not sure what you mean. Did you read what I've already posted?

What part of the makeup of the House are you referring to?

For instance, CA has about 12 GOP Reps and 40ish Dem Reps. So it would be reasonable to assume that the one Vote in the House that CA gets would be for Hilliary. So what? 30 States were for Trump. 20 States were granted to Hilliary. Which 6 States do you conjure would have Reps agree to Vote for Hilliary if their State Voted for Trump?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Not sure what you mean. Did you read what I've already posted?

What part of the makeup of the House are you referring to?

For instance, CA has about 12 GOP Reps and 40ish Dem Reps. So it would be reasonable to assume that the one Vote in the House that CA gets would be for Hilliary. So what? 30 States were for Trump. 20 States were granted to Hilliary. Which 6 States do you conjure would have Reps agrtee to Vote for Hilliary is their State

---

That's today. What about tomorrow?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

What or how do you envision the situation will change in the future?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'd also like to point out that you insulting me by calling me a Liberal is the exact reason why I thought you starting a new topic on the same issue that I had already started was a bad idea. It strips away all context of what I had previously said about anything and when I don't jump right on board with one of you're ideas you can insult me because of it.


But the insult doesn't stick when you put context back into it and see that the original topic of my thread on the exact same topic was "Boo Hoo, No Popular Vote For You", and that I'm obviously not on board at all with the idea of a popular vote.

Rather disingenuous of you to ignore that fact.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---