Seriously if he doesn't like it then he doesn't have to vote. Or stay a US Citizen.

have ignored it.

a state like Montana or N. Dakota, S. Dakota would never matter in an election if

the election was strictly by popular vote- as in, big inner city.

asswhole.

@calfoxwc said:

No, you raving jackass, my point is that because of the way the Electoral College is set up, your vote doesn't actually matter in the grand scheme of things when it comes to electing the president. The fact of the matter is, for the most part, the people's will, expressed by their votes, are not always expressed by the Electoral College electors.

...The electoral college gives "scarcely populated" states membership in the electoral process. Like N. Dakota, Montana, etc...

...Were it not for our electoral college, western states with so much less population would have little chance

of being represented in electing a president.

asswhole.

Unequal voting power depending on where you live:

The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.

For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.

The small states were given additional power to prevent politicians from only focusing on issues which affect the larger states. The fear was that without this power, politicians would completely ignore small states and only focus on big population centers.

Ironically, there is a study that concludes that larger states are actually at an advantage in the Electoral College. Because almost all states give all of its electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes within that state, candidates must win whole states in order to win the presidency. Naturally, candidates tend to concentrate resources on the largest payoffs, the states which can provide the greatest number of electoral votes.

@pumpkin-eater said:

The electorates of the electoral college have always done their job. They have never voted against the will of the people of state they represent. Not sure what the constitution hating liberal's point is.

Wrong.

Unbound electors:

There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. Even in the states that do have control, often the punishment or repercussion is slim or nothing (some states issue only minimal fines as punishment), although some states instigate criminal charges ranging from a simple misdemeanor to a fourth degree felony...

...Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state's law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District's unfair voting rights.

Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire.

He wins

Your stupidass non-point, was that the electoral college made stuff up, and they haven't done

anything in this election.

asswhole.

and Bush? Our elections are not based on popular vote nationally. Asswhole. The electoral college

gives "scarcely populated" states membership in the electoral process. Like N. Dakota, Montana, etc.

Were it not for our electoral college, western states with so much less population would have little chance

of being represented in electing a president.

asswhole.

@jbluhm86 said:

Jblow getting tough now. Fucking fat ass pussy.

@calfoxwc said:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/

• In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.
• In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.
• In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.
• In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

So, obviously, the Electoral College's votes don't always represent the popular votes of the citizens. Hence, "the Electoral College's results are made up, and the popular vote doesn't matter"

Yeah. So lighten up and go fuck yourself.

It is a projection based on states voting guesses. but thanks for stopping in to

make yourself look like an asswhole.