Those populations of those three states represent 45% of the total vote in 2016. That you really, honestly believe a national popular vote would benefit small states and individuals shows just how disingenuous your so called "conservative" beliefs really are.

So on one hand you looked at total population, including children and non-citizens, in three states, and on the other hand you looked at people who actually turned out to vote in the country as a whole.
Are you sure this isn't an apples and oranges comparison? Would you like to try again?

Not really, you argue for the sake of arguing, molding your position to whatever is expedient for you to continue to be contrarian. The purpose of the EC and our Federalist society is well known and has been the most successful government in human history, we good here instead of taking on the failed concepts of mob rule that you endorse.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So on one hand you looked at total population, including children and non-citizens, in three states, and on the other hand you looked at people who actually turned out to vote in the country as a whole.
Are you sure this isn't an apples and oranges comparison? Would you like to try again?

Not really, you argue for the sake of arguing, molding your position to whatever is expedient for you to continue to be contrarian. The purpose of the EC and our Federalist society is well known and has been the most successful government in human history, we good here instead of taking on the failed concepts of mob rule that you endorse.

Is this thread about the getting rid of the Electoral College or about me?
128,838,342 votes were cast for either Clinton or Trump in 2016.
4% of those were in Illinois.
6% of those were in New York.
10% of them were in California.
All together, those three states accounted for 20% of all votes cast for Clinton or Trump.
You claimed that those three states would control the outcome if we went to a National Popular Vote.  
But even if every voter in those states all voted for the same candidate, that candidate would only have 20% of the nationwide vote.  And Clinton "only" won 63% of those votes - those states would have only got her 13% of the total votes.  
Do you still think those three states control the outcome?
Or would you like to take that argument back?

So I can see why you want to make it about me.  You can win against me. Tell the other posters I'm just annoying, have a laugh.
But your argument can't defeat this math.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Not really, you argue for the sake of arguing, molding your position to whatever is expedient for you to continue to be contrarian. The purpose of the EC and our Federalist society is well known and has been the most successful government in human history, we good here instead of taking on the failed concepts of mob rule that you endorse.

Is this thread about the getting rid of the Electoral College or about me?
128,838,342 votes were cast for either Clinton or Trump in 2016.
4% of those were in Illinois.
6% of those were in New York.
10% of them were in California.
All together, those three states accounted for 20% of all votes cast for Clinton or Trump.
You claimed that those three states would control the outcome if we went to a National Popular Vote.  
But even if every voter in those states all voted for the same candidate, that candidate would only have 20% of the nationwide vote.  And Clinton "only" won 63% of those votes - those states would have only got her 13% of the total votes.  
Do you still think those three states control the outcome?
Or would you like to take that argument back?

So I can see why you want to make it about me.  You can win against me.  Tell the other posters I'm just annoying, have a laugh.
But your argument can't defeat this math.

Yes, you are right.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Leave it to you to use "math" while missing the point. OF COURSE those three states aren't going to win the election outright. Who would argue that? It's that those 3 states can CARRY an election more consistently than the current system. Think about the battleground states that mattered last election: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Is that not a better representative of America than NY and Cali? Of course it is. I can't speak for other posters, but I don't think it's a stretch to reason that when people say NY and Cali, they aren't being literal. They are representatives of the NE metropolises and the entire West Coast.  

What's interesting about the following graph, Mikesez?

Please help me with the "math" on this. Clinton won exactly one demographic, and that was urban cores, which she won in a landslide. This alone was enough to win her the popular vote. The divide between cities and towns is growing larger and there are no trends to suggest otherwise. What do you think is going to happen when more people move to the city as trends suggest? It's a rhetorical question, because even you aren't obtuse enough to miss something this obvious. Then again, I consistently underestimate your ability to manufacture drivel.

Again, my point earlier, that you have conveniently glossed over AGAIN with your "math," is that there is a huge trend among millennials towards urbanization. And as more people urbanize, the left would have more power with a national popular vote. And, as they get more power, the people in "flyover" flyover states are going to lose the ability to influence the direction of the Presidency. And, since the US isn't a democracy, but a Republic, it is unacceptable (by design) for a major portion of the US to not have an opportunity to influence the Presidential election. And they don't need to win every time, but have the opportunity to do so. Do you see how coherent that argument is, Mike?

In defense of your argument, I considered the notion that conservatives might turn out in greater numbers in states they can't usually win with the EC, like the NE and west coast, but this would be true for liberals to an even greater extent (since conservatives are already turning out in higher numbers currently). So, my position remains that you are simply advocating for a system that favors the left for no good reason. Yeah, yeah... parties. Not a valid argument.

---

Here's another neat little info-graphic for you to math all over:

---

Leave it to you to use "math" while missing the point. OF COURSE those three states aren't going to win the election outright. Who would argue that? It's that those 3 states can CARRY an election more consistently than the current system. Think about the battleground states that mattered last election: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Is that not a better representative of America than NY and Cali? Of course it is. I can't speak for other posters, but I don't think it's a stretch to reason that when people say NY and Cali, they aren't being literal. They are representatives of the NE metropolises and the entire West Coast.  

What's interesting about the following graph, Mikesez?

Please help me with the "math" on this. Clinton won exactly one demographic, and that was urban cores, which she won in a landslide. This alone was enough to win her the popular vote. The divide between cities and towns is growing larger and there are no trends to suggest otherwise. What do you think is going to happen when more people move to the city as trends suggest? It's a rhetorical question, because even you aren't obtuse enough to miss something this obvious. Then again, I consistently underestimate your ability to manufacture drivel.

Again, my point earlier, that you have conveniently glossed over AGAIN with your "math," is that there is a huge trend among millennials towards urbanization. And as more people urbanize, the left would have more power with a national popular vote. And, as they get more power, the people in "flyover" flyover states are going to lose the ability to influence the direction of the Presidency. And, since the US isn't a democracy, but a Republic, it is unacceptable (by design) for a major portion of the US to not have an opportunity to influence the Presidential election. And they don't need to win every time, but have the opportunity to do so. Do you see how coherent that argument is, Mike?

In defense of your argument, I considered the notion that conservatives might turn out in greater numbers in states they can't usually win with the EC, like the NE and west coast, but this would be true for liberals to an even greater extent (since conservatives are already turning out in higher numbers currently). So, my position remains that you are simply advocating for a system that favors the left for no good reason. Yeah, yeah... parties. Not a valid argument.

I would not claim that NY and Cali are more "representative" of the US as a whole than any other state in particular.  Growing up with our system of presidential primaries and electoral college, it is natural for you to ask that question.  
If we go to a national popular vote, NY and Cali will not "replace" the swing states. The boundaries between states will instead become totally irrelevant to the process of selecting a President.
The bar graphs you posted talk about counties.  And then you talk about sort of arbitrary splits between "urban core" and "suburbs" etc. - do these also each deserve equal say? Does your graph mean to suggest that since there are 5 human-geographic groups and Trump won four of them, that the real outcome of the election was four to five in favor of Trump? Why do it that way? Why not quintiles of income, or by race, or by education? None of these classifications is more meaningful than any other.  That's why the best system would just disregard all of them.  People are people.

The trend of urbanization may be reversing. Even if it isn't, why can't you see it as an opportunity? If the sons and daughters of suburban and rural families really are moving to urban cores, what makes you so sure they would adopt the voting patterns of their new home rather than those of their native home? What about the idea that many of those who are moving are from the minority of non-urban people who already vote for Democrats? In either case, the movement of people is not significant to the outcome of a national popular vote.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Childish. Did u watch election night? Trump was ahead by close to two million votes and the race was called.... Then they counted California. I think California itself constituted a C + 4 million advantage almost all of her advantage in the popular vote.

As for eliminating the lines.... Sigh... State sovereignty mean ANYTHING to u?

---

People say, but California, New York, and Illinois are so populous, they would control the election. They control the election now! If a democrat wins California by 51% to 49%, the democrat collects ALL the electoral votes for that state. Is it fair for Republican votes to not count at all in that circumstance? Why would a republican even bother voting in California or New York? As of now, their votes don't count! Texas is the same way. Why would a democrat even bother to vote in Texas?

Is it fair for Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to control the presidential election? Should everyone's votes count equally?

And don't you guys think that if the shoe was on the other foot, where Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, ALL you guys would be taking the opposite positions from the ones you are taking now?

---

House Democrats come back to capitol hill with nice tans from spending the weekend in PR.

---

People say, but California, New York, and Illinois are so populous, they would control the election.  They control the election now!    If a democrat wins California by 51% to 49%, the democrat collects ALL the electoral votes for that state.  Is it fair for Republican votes to not count at all in that circumstance?  Why would a republican even bother voting in California or New York?   As of now, their votes don't count!   Texas is the same way.   Why would a democrat even bother to vote in Texas?  

Is it fair for Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to control the presidential election?  Should everyone's votes count equally?  

And don't you guys think that if the shoe was on the other foot, where Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, ALL you guys would be taking the opposite positions from the ones you are taking now?

No, I wouldn't take that position, because I support the election of the President by the Sovereign States through the Electoral College and not by direct democratic vote. Frankly we shouldn't even tally a national popular vote because it's irrelevant to the election outcome, all that matters is the votes within the States themselves as the Founders intended.

---

Leave it to you to use "math" while missing the point. OF COURSE those three states aren't going to win the election outright. Who would argue that? It's that those 3 states can CARRY an election more consistently than the current system. Think about the battleground states that mattered last election: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Is that not a better representative of America than NY and Cali? Of course it is. I can't speak for other posters, but I don't think it's a stretch to reason that when people say NY and Cali, they aren't being literal. They are representatives of the NE metropolises and the entire West Coast.  

What's interesting about the following graph, Mikesez?

Please help me with the "math" on this. Clinton won exactly one demographic, and that was urban cores, which she won in a landslide. This alone was enough to win her the popular vote. The divide between cities and towns is growing larger and there are no trends to suggest otherwise. What do you think is going to happen when more people move to the city as trends suggest? It's a rhetorical question, because even you aren't obtuse enough to miss something this obvious. Then again, I consistently underestimate your ability to manufacture drivel.

Again, my point earlier, that you have conveniently glossed over AGAIN with your "math," is that there is a huge trend among millennials towards urbanization. And as more people urbanize, the left would have more power with a national popular vote. And, as they get more power, the people in "flyover" flyover states are going to lose the ability to influence the direction of the Presidency. And, since the US isn't a democracy, but a Republic, it is unacceptable (by design) for a major portion of the US to not have an opportunity to influence the Presidential election. And they don't need to win every time, but have the opportunity to do so. Do you see how coherent that argument is, Mike?

In defense of your argument, I considered the notion that conservatives might turn out in greater numbers in states they can't usually win with the EC, like the NE and west coast, but this would be true for liberals to an even greater extent (since conservatives are already turning out in higher numbers currently). So, my position remains that you are simply advocating for a system that favors the left for no good reason. Yeah, yeah... parties. Not a valid argument.

I appreciate you taking the time for this argument, but I fear you are arguing with someone diametrically opposed to the concept of Republicanism.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

And don't you guys think that if the shoe was on the other foot, where Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, ALL you guys would be taking the opposite positions from the ones you are taking now?

Well, no. Because I despise Donald Trump. In fact, one of the few things I despise more is amending the Constitution to win an election.

---

And don't you guys think that if the shoe was on the other foot, where Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, ALL you guys would be taking the opposite positions from the ones you are taking now?

No, conservatives respect the constitution, which is why we aim to have more representation on the SCOTUS.

You will also not see any conservative college students throwing bike racks through college campus windows if an election doesn't go our way.

---

And don't you guys think that if the shoe was on the other foot, where Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, ALL you guys would be taking the opposite positions from the ones you are taking now?

No, conservatives respect the constitution, which is why we aim to have more representation on the SCOTUS.

You will also not see any conservative college students throwing bike racks through college campus windows if an election doesn't go our way.

Nah, you guys just lynch and burn effigies of your political opponents.

---

Childish.  Did u watch election night?  Trump was ahead by close to two million votes and the race was called....  Then they counted California.  I think California itself constituted a C + 4 million advantage almost all of her advantage in the popular vote.  

As for eliminating the lines....  Sigh...  State sovereignty mean ANYTHING to u?

I went to bed.  I set an alarm to check a news website at 1 AM for the outcome.  Checked it, went back to sleep instantly.  Either way it meant a lot less to me that my child crying at about that time, as he often did.

The TV news needs things to talk about, and they need them to sound important.  So they amp up that vote total number, that today determines nothing, as if it matters. If we decide it matters, the players will adjust their strategies.  Think about how baseball would change if every base counted as a point. A single would be one, and if that runner made it home, he would have accumulated four points. RBI wouldn't be an important stat anymore. Batting order strategy would change completely.  Attempts to steal bases would go way up. Intentional walks might not be a thing anymore.  Comparing stats before and after would be interesting but would not predict anything about particular players or teams.

State sovereignty does mean a lot to me.  The Senate is the vehicle for state sovereignty.  The Senate would work better in it's intended role of giving the states a check on the feds if senators were appointed by the state government, but there are two really big reasons we don't do it that way now, and libertarians tend to ignore both.  And it works decently well as a check on federal overreach even with direct election.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

---

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

How so?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

How so?

"I'm a Republican, really!" Vs 98% of your posts.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How so?

"I'm a Republican, really!" Vs 98% of your posts.

I am a republican. I mean you guys keep asking and I keep on telling you the truth.
I don't think I would say it so much if you didn't bring it up so much.
And why do you keep bringing it up as if it matters at all? I'm either making a valid point or I'm not. People can make valid points regardless of what their voter registration card says.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

"I'm a Republican, really!" Vs 98% of your posts.

I am a republican. I mean you guys keep asking and I keep on telling you the truth.
I don't think I would say it so much if you didn't bring it up so much.
And why do you keep bringing it up as if it matters at all? I'm either making a valid point or I'm not. People can make valid points regardless of what their voter registration card says.

You asked how so and I told you. You always defend or endorse the left position on whatever we happen to be discussing then try to smooth it over by claiming to be something you aren't. In simpler terms, you post out of both sides of your mouth.

"I had a pretty good reputation until I started disagreeing with Mikey", and come to think of it, still have a pretty good one after that as well.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I am a republican. I mean you guys keep asking and I keep on telling you the truth.
I don't think I would say it so much if you didn't bring it up so much.
And why do you keep bringing it up as if it matters at all? I'm either making a valid point or I'm not. People can make valid points regardless of what their voter registration card says.

You asked how so and I told you. You always defend or endorse the left position on whatever we happen to be discussing then try to smooth it over by claiming to be something you aren't. In simpler terms, you post out of both sides of your mouth.

"I had a pretty good reputation until I started disagreeing with Mikey", and come to think of it, still have a pretty good one after that as well.

Wow, he down votes you? That is some weak stuff right there. The whole reputation thing is silly in general.

---