How about this for the electoral college?

[wiffleball 4,640]

Some people want to abolish it, some people want to keep it. Everybody's claiming sore loser! So here's my idea:

 

We double the electoral points 4 every state that doesn't border a coastline. I mean for Pete's sake, New York has brought us what? Hillary and Trump? Not to mention King and Schumer. On the other coast, we get pelosi and Nunez?

And don't even get me started on the third Coast. we got Bush and Perry who was absolutely fascinated to find out that the department of energy had anything to do with nuclear energy. Not to mention Sheila Jackson Lee and further along that same Coast, Maxine Waters.

 

So, screw the coasts. They have way too much influence and they have systemically failed on both sides of the aisle.

Now, I'm not saying the fly over States are going to do any better, but for Pete's sake, they can't do any worse.

To that end, I'm throwing all my support behind Pete Booty Judge.

He brings all the 'not an insider' aspect that Trump was supposed to bring. And he brings the brain part that liberals are supposed to have.

Plus, he has a pee pee, so that should make CNN and MSNBC explode. But he's gay, so that'll make Fox explode too.

Win win win.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

What the fock are you talking about? 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

New York didn't go for Trump.

How about we just enact a strict Voter ID for the nation? 

[sderk 1,040]

31 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

New York didn't go for Trump.

How about we just enact a strict Voter ID for the nation? 

Lefties don't have the confidence they will ever win anything unless they give things to the undeserving riff-raff that seep into this country as well as the undeserving riff-raff that are already in this country and don't want to get off their asses and contribute anything other than an uneducated opinion on everything that floats in front of their faces.  

[KSB2424 3,083]

No, its perfectly fine.   The only reason its even being discussed is because Hillary lost.  If she would have won the Democrats wouldn't have said anything.  The Electoral College worked just fine for Obama but NOW all the sudden we need to change something our Founding Fathers instituted for a purpose. 

Go pound sand.

[drobeski 3,061]

8 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

No, its perfectly fine.   The only reason its even being discussed is because Hillary lost.  If she would have won the Democrats wouldn't have said anything.  The Electoral College worked just fine for Obama but NOW all the sudden we need to change something our Founding Fathers instituted for a purpose. 

Go pound sand.

Bingo

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

9 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

No, its perfectly fine.   The only reason its even being discussed is because Hillary lost.  If she would have won the Democrats wouldn't have said anything.  The Electoral College worked just fine for Obama but NOW all the sudden we need to change something our Founding Fathers instituted for a purpose. 

Go pound sand.

2009 - The Electoral College - Reform Options - FairVote

2008 - Alternative proposed to the Electoral College - POLITICO

2011 - Electoral College abolition amendment - Wikipedia

2012 - 10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem | MinnPost

2012 - Time to eliminate the Electoral College? | Fox News

 

[wiffleball 4,640]

51 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

No, its perfectly fine.   The only reason its even being discussed is because Hillary lost.  If she would have won the Democrats wouldn't have said anything.  The Electoral College worked just fine for Obama but NOW all the sudden we need to change something our Founding Fathers instituted for a purpose. 

Go pound sand.

Sounds like something a "coastie" would say.

Real Amurcans surround themselves with other Amuricans.

[wiffleball 4,640]

40 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

2009 - The Electoral College - Reform Options - FairVote

2008 - Alternative proposed to the Electoral College - POLITICO

2011 - Electoral College abolition amendment - Wikipedia

2012 - 10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem | MinnPost

2012 - Time to eliminate the Electoral College? | Fox News

 

Oh, SNAP!

That's gonna leave a welt. Lol

[posty 2,296]

How about states won, first to 26 wins...  Every state counts for one vote...  So California and New York would only count two just like North and South Dakota...

[sderk 1,040]

1 hour ago, KSB2424 said:

No, its perfectly fine.   The only reason its even being discussed is because Hillary lost.  If she would have won the Democrats wouldn't have said anything.  The Electoral College worked just fine for Obama but NOW all the sudden we need to change something our Founding Fathers instituted for a purpose. 

Go pound sand.

These leftist numb-nuts are so dumb they can't comprehend their own words from day to day. They are running their campaigns on momentary 'feelings'. Their agenda is to make people emotional and then structure their lives based on emotions. Probably mostly because they don't know rational thought.

And then you get fruitcakes running around the country yelling "Oh SNAP!!' at at anything that makes them tingle inside.

[drobeski 3,061]

Remember when they were crying like school girls that trump wouldn't accept the election results....before the election?

2.5 years of tantrums, special counsels and tears....and they still cant accept the criminal head shaking pile of dog schit excuse for a candidate got trounced! 

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

2009 - The Electoral College - Reform Options - FairVote

2008 - Alternative proposed to the Electoral College - POLITICO

2011 - Electoral College abolition amendment - Wikipedia

2012 - 10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem | MinnPost

2012 - Time to eliminate the Electoral College? | Fox News

 

Like was said above, the Dems and Liberal media didn't have a problem with it, until they lost.

[sderk 1,040]

Why don't we just put Cortez and Abrams and Omar and Tlaib and Pelosi and Waters and all those nutcases in a cage match battle to the death and tell them the winner gets to be the president. Then when only one is left, we tell her we lied. Then we can hold our rational normal working electoral college vote as always for 2020. 

Heck, we can throw in MDC and Wiffle. Neither of them would make it past 30 seconds but it would prove to be good fun in the end.

 

[Voltaire 4,560]

1 hour ago, sderk said:

Why don't we just put Cortez and Abrams and Omar and Tlaib and Pelosi and Waters and all those nutcases in a cage match battle to the death and tell them the winner gets to be the president. Then when only one is left, we tell her we lied. Then we can hold our rational normal working electoral college vote as always for 2020. 

Heck, we can throw in MDC and Wiffle. Neither of them would make it past 30 seconds but it would prove to be good fun in the end.

 

$50 on Abrams.

[wiffleball 4,640]

1 hour ago, Voltaire said:

$50 on Abrams.

Jeesus, I'd feel like the kid that fell in the cage with harambe.

[Voltaire 4,560]

7 hours ago, posty said:

How about states won, first to 26 wins...  Every state counts for one vote...  So California and New York would only count two just like North and South Dakota...

Thankfully, the Senate already works this way.

[Voltaire 4,560]

How about the Dems look at an electoral map, see there are 10 votes in Wisconsin, 16 in Michigan, and 20 in Pennsylvania, think "hey polls in those states are close, maybe if I didn't sound like a condescending SJW freak, I could go there and win".

You never know, might work.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,584]

How’s about we just keep things the same 

[wiffleball 4,640]

1 hour ago, Voltaire said:

How about the Dems look at an electoral map, see there are 10 votes in Wisconsin, 16 in Michigan, and 20 in Pennsylvania, think "hey polls in those states are close, maybe if I didn't sound like a condescending SJW freak, I could go there and win".

You never know, might work.

Did you know that bush lost Wisconsin by .3% in 2004? Just think, if he would have won that state...

[tubby_mcgee 686]

8 hours ago, wiffleball said:

Oh, SNAP!

That's gonna leave a welt. Lol

 

 

Really? How?  LOL.

Trump is President.  We use electoral college. Guns are legal. 

I mean,  just because libs whine, uhhh....doesn't change anything.  Ouch.  That's gonna leave a welt. 

Now get back to being lazy. 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

One vote per county is the only alternative I would even consider. 

[jerryskids 5,206]

4 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

One vote per county is the only alternative I would even consider. 

That would create unnatural incentives to have a lot of counties.  In AZ we have maybe 15 counties.  Florida looks like it has about a bazillion.  

I would entertain a discussion of splitting the electors vs. winner take all; a few states do this already (Maine, Nebraska?).  That's a little closer to a popular vote.

[shorepatrol 1,737]

24 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

One vote per county is the only alternative I would even consider. 

You should rethink considering anything but what the constitution states. 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Just now, shorepatrol said:

You should rethink considering anything but what the constitution states. 

I’m 100% in support of the constitution, just spit balling a little. 

[shorepatrol 1,737]

Just now, iam90sbaby said:

I’m 100% in support of the constitution, just spit balling a little. 

You're opening a discussion to change it. Stop spit balling to appease focking morons 

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Just now, shorepatrol said:

You're opening a discussion to change it. Stop spit balling to appease focking morons 

 

Yeah you’re right, fock’em

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

17 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That would create unnatural incentives to have a lot of counties.  In AZ we have maybe 15 counties.  Florida looks like it has about a bazillion.  

I would entertain a discussion of splitting the electors vs. winner take all; a few states do this already (Maine, Nebraska?).  That's a little closer to a popular vote.

I had something typed up by then shore made a painfully obvious statement that I agree with. I don’t want to open those doors. Our system made us the greatest country in the world in less than 200 years, let’s not fock it all up.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Its a waste of time to discuss it because to change the Constitution requires too many small states to give up their power.  The other way is that law to force electors to go with the national popular vote winner, but again that bill needs WAY too many small states to get passed.

There will not be a change here.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

13 hours ago, Voltaire said:

Thankfully, the Senate already works this way.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense that Wyoming, South Dakota and North Dakota, with a population less than Houston has 6 senators.   

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

11 hours ago, tubby_mcgee said:

 

 

Really? How?  LOL.

Trump is President.  We use electoral college. Guns are legal. 

I mean,  just because libs whine, uhhh....doesn't change anything.  Ouch.  That's gonna leave a welt. 

Now get back to being lazy. 

 

21 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

No, its perfectly fine.   The only reason its even being discussed is because Hillary lost.  If she would have won the Democrats wouldn't have said anything.  The Electoral College worked just fine for Obama but NOW all the sudden we need to change something our Founding Fathers instituted for a purpose. 

Go pound sand.

Need it explained further?

[Voltaire 4,560]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yeah, makes a lot of sense that Wyoming, South Dakota and North Dakota, with a population less than Houston has 6 senators.   

More of a relief, really. Houston, teaming up with other population hubs, are super-well represented in the House. It was a balance the founders came up with to balance the interests of small states with large that is really paying off dividends now.

[drobeski 3,061]

Mike can you post links to your post complaining about the electoral college pre-trump.

TIA

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

2 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

More of a relief, really. Houston, teaming up with other population hubs, are super-well represented in the House. It was a balance the founders came up with to balance the interests of small states with large that is really paying off dividends now.

You are glorifying it. It wasn't some visionary plan for balance. It was a political compromise necessary to get the constitution ratified. It also came with the 3/5 compromise, so black slaves could be represented electorally even though they were property.

[jerryskids 5,206]

34 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yeah, makes a lot of sense that Wyoming, South Dakota and North Dakota, with a population less than Houston has 6 senators.   

If only we had 6 Sheila Jackson Lees in the Senate. 

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

2 hours ago, drobeski said:

Mike can you post links to your post complaining about the electoral college pre-trump.

TIA

Wow, this is tough, spend my lunch break arguing against drobe's strawman or watch Arrested Development, oh what shall I do?   

[drobeski 3,061]

13 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Wow, this is tough, spend my lunch break arguing against drobe's strawman or watch Arrested Development, oh what shall I do?   

Didn't think so

She lost  

[posty 2,296]

Looks like the FBG idiots agree with getting rid of the college...

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/775044-democrats-move-to-eliminate-the-electoral-college/

And at Mario Kart thinking we would have had 26 years of a Democrat president...  Man a whole bunch of clueless over there...

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3QA-wQUIAAIKgA.jpg

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

2 hours ago, posty said:

Looks like the FBG idiots agree with getting rid of the college...

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/775044-democrats-move-to-eliminate-the-electoral-college/

And at Mario Kart thinking we would have had 26 years of a Democrat president...  Man a whole bunch of clueless over there...

Yeah, they are so out of the mainstream.  PRRI

Quote

By roughly a two-to-one margin, Americans say they would prefer if presidential elections were decided by the national popular vote as opposed to the Electoral College. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Americans believe that presidential elections should be decided based on the national popular vote, while about one-third (32%) believe they should be decided through the Electoral College.