Not sure how the numbers are the same if highly populated liberal cities have higher voter turnout and take up a bigger piece of the 125 million "pie".

I said they would be about the same. 
And the reason I put that extra word "about" in there was because the turnout rate can vary.
But it does not vary by much. Give me an example of why you think this is a problem. Can you show me a city that has a really high turnout in presidential elections compared to a rural area that has really low turnout? How big is the difference?

Can you show me a city that has a really low turnout compared to a rural area that has a really high turnout?  Even with things being like that, the "low turnout" from a city would be much higher than a "high turnout" from a rural area.  That's the problem and why the Electoral College is necessary.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I said they would be about the same. 
And the reason I put that extra word "about" in there was because the turnout rate can vary.
But it does not vary by much. Give me an example of why you think this is a problem. Can you show me a city that has a really high turnout in presidential elections compared to a rural area that has really low turnout? How big is the difference?

How does that 17% of NYC's population compare to the total state population of Idaho?

We are talking about 17% of the US population or 17% of all voters nationally.
No one is talking about 17% of NYC's population. 
Are you having trouble with math or are you just trying to detail the thread?

---

I said they would be about the same. 
And the reason I put that extra word "about" in there was because the turnout rate can vary.
But it does not vary by much. Give me an example of why you think this is a problem. Can you show me a city that has a really high turnout in presidential elections compared to a rural area that has really low turnout? How big is the difference?

Can you show me a city that has a really low turnout compared to a rural area that has a really high turnout?  Even with things being like that, the "low turnout" from a city would be much higher than a "high turnout" from a rural area.  That's the problem and why the Electoral College is necessary.

No. 83% of Americans live outside of the 5 largest cities in America.  Total votes from "not top 5" voters will be 4 to 6 times more than total votes from voters in the top 5 cities.

---

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

How does that 17% of NYC's population compare to the total state population of Idaho?

We are talking about 17% of the US population or 17% of all voters nationally.
No one is talking about 17% of NYC's population. 
Are you having trouble with math or are you just trying to detail the thread?

---

Can you show me a city that has a really low turnout compared to a rural area that has a really high turnout?  Even with things being like that, the "low turnout" from a city would be much higher than a "high turnout" from a rural area.  That's the problem and why the Electoral College is necessary.

No. 83% of Americans live outside of the 5 largest cities in America.  Total votes from "not top 5" voters will be 4 to 6 times more than total votes from voters in the top 5 cities.

But what about the illegals?

Seriously though. You want a pure popular vote to determine all elections or just the POTUS?
Either way, we need voter ID laws and we need to make sure every vote counted is legit.

I'd like a popular vote for all laws to be passed at state and federal levels.



But ya know... want in one hand and [BLEEP] in the other and see what fills up faster

---

How does that 17% of NYC's population compare to the total state population of Idaho?

We are talking about 17% of the US population or 17% of all voters nationally.
No one is talking about 17% of NYC's population. 
Are you having trouble with math or are you just trying to detail the thread?

---

Can you show me a city that has a really low turnout compared to a rural area that has a really high turnout?  Even with things being like that, the "low turnout" from a city would be much higher than a "high turnout" from a rural area.  That's the problem and why the Electoral College is necessary.

No. 83% of Americans live outside of the 5 largest cities in America.  Total votes from "not top 5" voters will be 4 to 6 times more than total votes from voters in the top 5 cities.

The math is simple, obviously you struggle with the concept. It explains your foolishness in this thread.

---

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

We are talking about 17% of the US population or 17% of all voters nationally.
No one is talking about 17% of NYC's population. 
Are you having trouble with math or are you just trying to detail the thread?

---

No. 83% of Americans live outside of the 5 largest cities in America.  Total votes from "not top 5" voters will be 4 to 6 times more than total votes from voters in the top 5 cities.

But what about the illegals?

Seriously though. You want a pure popular vote to determine all elections or just the POTUS?
Either way, we need voter ID laws and we need to make sure every vote counted is legit.

I'd like a popular vote for all laws to be passed at state and federal levels.



But ya know... want in one hand and [BLEEP] in the other and see what fills up faster

How many illegal immigrants voting do you think there are?! You know that lots of illegal immigrants live outside of the top 5 cities right? A lot of them work in agriculture. 

I agree that we would need a single federal standard and enforcement of voter ID laws if we are going to do any kind of national popular vote for anyting.

But I don't think we need to do a national popular vote for anything. the difficulty of establishing a federal standard for voting, and establishing a federal authority to count votes, and the likelihood that such a federal authority would lose trust down the road, are all good reasons to not do a national popular vote.

But I do think the argument that, "if we change anything at all about the electoral college suddenly all the power will go to a few large cities" is dumb, and wrong.

---

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

We are talking about 17% of the US population or 17% of all voters nationally.
No one is talking about 17% of NYC's population. 
Are you having trouble with math or are you just trying to detail the thread?

---

No. 83% of Americans live outside of the 5 largest cities in America.  Total votes from "not top 5" voters will be 4 to 6 times more than total votes from voters in the top 5 cities.

But what about the illegals?

Seriously though. You want a pure popular vote to determine all elections or just the POTUS?
Either way, we need voter ID laws and we need to make sure every vote counted is legit.

I'd like a popular vote for all laws to be passed at state and federal levels.



But ya know... want in one hand and [BLEEP] in the other and see what fills up faster

Yes, dems are for a popular vote but want nothing to do with voter ID laws. It is quite simple. Every vote is registered against a social security number. SSN is verified that said person is not dead and over 18.

---

We are talking about 17% of the US population or 17% of all voters nationally.
No one is talking about 17% of NYC's population. 
Are you having trouble with math or are you just trying to detail the thread?

---

No. 83% of Americans live outside of the 5 largest cities in America.  Total votes from "not top 5" voters will be 4 to 6 times more than total votes from voters in the top 5 cities.

The math is simple, obviously you struggle with the concept. It explains your foolishness in this thread.

17% of New York city's population adds up to between 3 and 4 million people. What was your point about them?

---

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

The math is simple, obviously you struggle with the concept. It explains your foolishness in this thread.

17% of New York city's population adds up to between 3 and 4 million people. What was your point about them?

California alone has 40 million people. Assuming 30 million of those people are democrats, that is 25% of the overall vote going to the democratic candidate out of a pool of 125M active voters.

No thanks. the EC works just fine and dandy.

---

17% of New York city's population adds up to between 3 and 4 million people. What was your point about them?

California alone has 40 million people. Assuming 30 million of those people are democrats, that is 25% of the overall vote going to the democratic candidate out of a pool of 125M active voters.

No thanks. the EC works just fine and dandy.

California does have about 40 million people.
Not all of them are citizens over 18 years of age. Only about 30 million are.
Not all of those who qualify to vote actually register to vote. Only about 20 million are
Not all of those who register, actually vote.  Only about 15 million do.
And only about two-thirds of those who actually vote, vote for Democrats.
The actual result in California in 2016 was 14.5 million votes, with 62% of those going to Hillary and 32% to Trump.
It's plausible that registration and turnout would increase if we went to a different system, but you wouldn't jump from 9 million votes for Democrats all the way to 30 million. That's not possible.

---

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

The math is simple, obviously you struggle with the concept. It explains your foolishness in this thread.

17% of New York city's population adds up to between 3 and 4 million people. What was your point about them?

Soooooo, 2x more than the whole state of Idaho then? C'mon bud, squirm again.

---

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

17% of New York city's population adds up to between 3 and 4 million people. What was your point about them?

Soooooo, 2x more than the whole state of Idaho then? C'mon bud, squirm again.

Idaho gets two votes in the house, two senators and four electoral votes.
Their electoral votes haven't changed the result, ever. 
Their votes in the Senate are the only ones with real power it seems.  
What's your point?

---

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

Soooooo, 2x more than the whole state of Idaho then? C'mon bud, squirm again.

Idaho gets two votes in the house, two senators and four electoral votes.
Their electoral votes haven't changed the result, ever. 
Their votes in the Senate are the only ones with real power it seems.  
What's your point?

That the EC perfectly balances the concerns of both urban and rural areas by indirectly electing the President. A switch to popular vote would eliminate the last vestiges of Federalism and give the 57 highly populated counties that voted for Hillary undue influence over the other several thousand that did not, and we will not permit that. You're welcome, the end.

---

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

Idaho gets two votes in the house, two senators and four electoral votes.
Their electoral votes haven't changed the result, ever. 
Their votes in the Senate are the only ones with real power it seems.  
What's your point?

That the EC perfectly balances the concerns of both urban and rural areas by indirectly electing the President. A switch to popular vote would eliminate the last vestiges of Federalism and give the 57 highly populated counties that voted for Hillary undue influence over the other several thousand that did not, and we will not permit that. You're welcome, the end.

But Idaho has no influence to elect the President now, and changing the EC doesn't change their influence on the Senate.

---

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

I said they would be about the same. 
And the reason I put that extra word "about" in there was because the turnout rate can vary.
But it does not vary by much. Give me an example of why you think this is a problem. Can you show me a city that has a really high turnout in presidential elections compared to a rural area that has really low turnout? How big is the difference?

How does that 17% of NYC's population compare to the total state population of Idaho?

Depends. Are we talking people or potatoes?

---

Excuse me Mike, I have a Mr. Gore on the line. He takes issue with the "Idaho never effected the results" statement...

---

first you said 


How is pointing out that sentiment is antithetical to 10th amendment federalism OFF TOPIC?  Just a question.  

1.) if you are going to use the text book definition of: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument. Then the rational quality of any given candidate or politicians positions does in fact matter in classifying someone as a demagogue.  If you mean to say anyone who makes a general emotional appeal, or makes any statement that isn't right out of the "Harvard debate society" then there has NEVER been a politician to meet that definition so what difference does the EC make.  Moreover, contextually the term is used to describe someone as making a large scale emotional appeal that would, on its merits, fail rational scrutiny. You can't make that assertion when the policies advocated function as intended and provide positive results. 

2.) Most dramatically, you skip over the basic fact that your original premise for this thread is wrong.  The Electoral College wasn't created to simply to prevent "Demagogues" from assuming the presidency it was created as an instrument of Federalist Democratic Republicanism to choose an executive in the same way that we pass laws to ensure broad consensus within the paradigm of State Sovereignty, Regional integrity, and mitigating mobocracy.  Contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't created just to ensure you have what you perceive to be a sterile Twitter feed. 


[font=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif]Constitutional republicanism is a form of government that has allowed our country to function in commerce and politics for the last 160 years without regional armed conflict or the threat of secession.  The only time in our history when it became a question was the elimination of the most onerous economic institution in the history of mankind, not just our country.  It's a delicate balance of a strong Federal Government that can advocate for the Union as a whole while preserving state sovereignty and regional integrity.  That's a remarkable feat that the Founders accomplished 250 years ago in 7 pages that the BETTERS of Europe haven't accomplished in 1000.  To boil down the instruments of Democratic republicanism to just finding leaders who "Don't say things I don't like" would be like calling would be like criticizing a 747 for the peanuts. [/font]

3.) You fail to acknowledge the role of societal evolution, social media, media bias, and the current state of the educational system in continuing to foster the hostility in the political environment.  You have this myopic view that somehow if we just wave a magic wand and count delegates differently that somehow we will arrive at this utopia.  

4.) And here it is.  Going back to my point about the affects of higher education, it amazes me how many so called conservatives will try to distance themselves from the last theater of popular culture that actually advocates, or even tolerates the ideology they espouse just to be seen in the eyes of the world as Civil.  But in a way you're right.  There is a time and a place for everything.  The political marketplace demonstrates that McCain, the Godfather of this ideology found the wrong balance, Romney found the wrong balance, and Trump found a balance not seen in the GOP since Dukakis.  

One last story, When General Lemay took over the B29 program, I can only imagine the loud cry from the engineers who designed the plane that this simpleton would have the ignorance and the sheer audacity to take a plane they designed in all their splendor to fly at 30k feet (and miss its targets) and drop it down to 7k feet.

Equivocation city, dude. Wow. 
The president is financially bound to adversarial foreign governments, clearly using the presidency to further his financial interest, specifically by collecting emoluments from foreigners. 

these are all possible outcomes that Alexander Hamilton said we would avoid by using an electoral college in Federalist 68.

The demagoguery on Twitter is important to but let's not get lost in the weeds here.

Who needs the nutmeg now brother?

---

Excuse me Mike, I have a Mr. Gore on the line.  He takes issue with the "Idaho never effected the results" statement...

New Mexico and Florida were closer. So was New Hampshire.  Idaho was never going to swing to Gore.  It was ignored during and after that process.

---

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

Equivocation city, dude. Wow. 
The president is financially bound to adversarial foreign governments, clearly using the presidency to further his financial interest, specifically by collecting emoluments from foreigners. 

these are all possible outcomes that Alexander Hamilton said we would avoid by using an electoral college in Federalist 68.

The demagoguery on Twitter is important to but let's not get lost in the weeds here.

Who needs the nutmeg now brother?

I'm sorry, did I miss in the news where President Trump and his family are no longer profiting from the Trump hotel in Washington DC, which targets visiting foreign dignitaries?
Did they all sell their stake in Mar-A-Lago, where people are encouraged to buy membership so that they might have access to the President? Do the profits from those membership fees no longer go to Trump's family?
Did Trump manage to pay back all the loans he took out with Deutsche Bank?
Is Deutsche Bank's balance sheet no longer propped up with ill gotten gains from Russian kleptocrats?

---

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

Who needs the nutmeg now brother?

I'm sorry, did I miss in the news where President Trump and his family are no longer profiting from the Trump hotel in Washington DC, which targets visiting foreign dignitaries?
Did they all sell their stake in Mar-A-Lago, where people are encouraged to buy membership so that they might have access to the President? Do the profits from those membership fees no longer go to Trump's family?
Did Trump manage to pay back all the loans he took out with Deutsche Bank?
Is Deutsche Bank's balance sheet no longer propped up with ill gotten gains from Russian kleptocrats?

Isn't there a thread for this already?

All legal business dealings under the global Trump brand. Earnings to include foreign reported per the Ethics in Government Act and dontated to U.S. Treasury Department. You don't have to stop being a business man once elected President unless Congress determines otherwise. However, there are zero court rulings that interpret the scope of Emoluments Clause, only justice department, GAO, and GSA opinions. All state Trump is compliant and commercial transactions as part of a business do not fall under emoluments. Hence, you have heard barely a squeak since he took office except by other businesses that filed suit because they can't compete.

---

Who needs the nutmeg now brother?

I'm sorry, did I miss in the news where President Trump and his family are no longer profiting from the Trump hotel in Washington DC, which targets visiting foreign dignitaries?
Did they all sell their stake in Mar-A-Lago, where people are encouraged to buy membership so that they might have access to the President? Do the profits from those membership fees no longer go to Trump's family?
Did Trump manage to pay back all the loans he took out with Deutsche Bank?
Is Deutsche Bank's balance sheet no longer propped up with ill gotten gains from Russian kleptocrats?

Lol.  U don't know what an emolument is!   So sad.  So sad.

---