If electoral college was ended, could the republicans EVER win another election?

[Renathras]

Maybe you'd care to educate yourself on some of the atrocities your country has committed before speaking up on the basis of some ISIS torture porn you found on the internet.

Oh, yes, because things that nations have done in the past are totally equatable to things happening today. Yeah, you pulled a little girl's hair when you were 5 years old, so that obviously means you're a domestic abuser and rapist today, right?

And I'm confused, are you defending ISIS? Are you saying "in the grand scheme of things, ISIS isn't really that bad, because other people have done similar things in the past"?

Because, honestly, if you want to look at history, every government, every people group ON. THE. PLANET. has done horrible things in their pasts. But we don't judge (or can't/shouldn't unless we're being abjectly devoid of any sense of rationality or reason) entire people groups, or even individual people, entirely on things done in the past.

When making comparisons, you have to make comparisons between the people alive and actionable TODAY.

No one in the US - TODAY - is in favor of the Trail of Tears, Slavery, and so on. Even Westboro "Baptist Church" isn't doing the things that ISIS does. (And I shudder to even say this, because I think they're horrible Human beings...but they aren't selling women and CHILDREN into sexual slavery and burning people alive, at least...)

.

Maybe you'd care to educate yourself on...well, anything, really. Your statement is so devoid of anything approaching a rebuttal to my post that you quoted, it was really not even something I should have to respond to.

I said: "Nothing in the US is equatable to ISIS"
You say: "Oh yeah! What about the US...OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO!!?"

The only real rebuttal needed is: "Nothing in the US - TODAY - is equatable to ISIS. Period."

[Citizen T]

Christ, I even had the word "fundamentalist" in my post to indicate that I wasn't talking about mainstream Christianity.

- - - Updated - - -



And even if that weren't the case, who gives a shit what either party did 150 years ago. That's irrelevant. None of those policies or policymakers even exist anymore.

OK, point me to a large group of "fundamentalist" Christians in the US that have captured and set fire to people that disagree with them. Once you have done this, then perhaps I'll call the attempt to compare them to ISIS legitimate.

[Muadiib]

If sanctuary cities were ended, would the Democrats ever win another election again? They will be ended, illegal immigration will no longer be tolerated and the wall will be built, will the Democrats ever win again? Doesn't look like it! Those that understand why the Electoral College exists understand it's brilliance, without it illegal immigrant havens like California that live in a liberal bubble (and are close to bankruptcy because of it) would dictate the course of the US every election, thank God that's not possible, thank God the founding fathers had more sense than that.

[Adam Jensen]

Oh, yes, because things that nations have done in the past are totally equatable to things happening today. Yeah, you pulled a little girl's hair when you were 5 years old, so that obviously means you're a domestic abuser and rapist today, right?

And I'm confused, are you defending ISIS? Are you saying "in the grand scheme of things, ISIS isn't really that bad, because other people have done similar things in the past"?

Because, honestly, if you want to look at history, every government, every people group ON. THE. PLANET. has done horrible things in their pasts. But we don't judge (or can't/shouldn't unless we're being abjectly devoid of any sense of rationality or reason) entire people groups, or even individual people, entirely on things done in the past.

When making comparisons, you have to make comparisons between the people alive and actionable TODAY.

No one in the US - TODAY - is in favor of the Trail of Tears, Slavery, and so on. Even Westboro "Baptist Church" isn't doing the things that ISIS does. (And I shudder to even say this, because I think they're horrible Human beings...but they aren't selling women and CHILDREN into sexual slavery and burning people alive, at least...)

.

Maybe you'd care to educate yourself on...well, anything, really. Your statement is so devoid of anything approaching a rebuttal to my post that you quoted, it was really not even something I should have to respond to.

I said: "Nothing in the US is equatable to ISIS"
You say: "Oh yeah! What about the US...OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO!!?"

The only real rebuttal needed is: "Nothing in the US - TODAY - is equatable to ISIS. Period."

ISIS in the middle east is worse than fundamentalist Christianity in the US. Doesn't change the fact that they're both cancers. Thank god the Christian extremists aren't as violent or brutal as ISIS, but the fact is their hateful rhetoric is a damaging influence to both the GOP and the United States. These are people who want to deny gays marriage, women the choice to chose (through either birth control or abortion,) and try to shove their way of thinking in our schools and our science books and our legislatures.

ISIS is worse, there's no equivalence here, and neither I, nor, I think, Advanta, claimed any.

And note, my ire is for the loud vocal minority of extremist Christians, not the mainstream regulars.

[Renathras]

Looks to me like that doesn't happen. I can't help but feel for example, that the socio-economic problems of the black community are not helped by the fact their communities tend to congregate in cities and their votes count for less.

The rights protected by the Constitution aren't socio-economic, they're personal. Equality of persons, not equality of outcome. That is, everyone in the country has the same basic collection of rights under the Constitution (though some states give/ensure/grant or place restrictions on various of those rights).

This issue is more that people see the word "rights" and use whatever collection of things in their mind are "rights" to be what that must be referring to. That's not it at all. The Constitution even explicitly (for the most part) laid out what rights it was referring to. Among those, religion, press, peaceable assembly, speech, gun ownership, security of their person and belongings (from both confiscation without due process and unreasonable search and seizure AND the rights of their homes not to be used by force by military or government agencies), and several rights related to judicial proceedings, including right to a jury of their peers (not government appointed judges alone), protection against (forced) self-incrimination, and protection from being held more than once to trial for something that could result in them being put to death or imprisoned, so the government can't just have trial after trial after trial until it gets the verdict it wants.

Outside of those rights, is this sort of "and everything else", clause, saying that anything that the Constitution did not give the federal government power over, or prohibit to the states/people, is a matter for the people/states to decide on the local level.

For one example, the Constitution is entirely mum on the topic of marriage (not least of all because they never would have fathomed, in their day, the idea of LGBT persons or of same-sex marriage). So, as far as the Constitution is concerned, each state can decide on its own, as its people want, whether they want to have same-sex marriage in their state or not.

The federal government, itself, should have neither say in marriage nor use of marriage for anything (tax law or whatnot), because the Constitution neither defines it nor gives the federal government the right to regulate it.

.

This is one of many issues where people have decided on a "right" that the Constitution doesn't mention. The correct answer, in our system of government, is that any "right" not mentioned by the Constitution, is a matter for states to decide.

This means that, say, California should not be able to outlaw free speech, for example, but should be able to have same-sex marriage, no same-sex marriage, polygamy, or even no marriage at all - based on how its voters decide.

.

"Socio-economic problems", are neither "rights" nor "votes".

This isn't to say they aren't issues, but they aren't matters of the Constitution to fix. They're matters for the states to fix, and for the federal government to stay out of the way of, since it has no jurisdiction over those issues (the Constitution only allows the federal government to intercede in matters of interstate or international commerce, not socio-economic issues in a general sense outside of "the general welfare".)

[0ptimo]

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. (higher now)

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

[cubby]

I honestly feel that if the electoral college were abolished the way all these liberals want it to be that the republicans would literally never win another election for the rest of all history and time.

Kinda need the electoral college so republicans can get turns with the whitehouse honestly?

Liberal democrat voters will always win the popular vote as far as I'm concerned

If you change the voting system, the competitors will change their campaigning strategy. Trump won the EC vote because he did the math and targeted the states he thought he could to win. And it worked.

Keep in mind that the GOP has had popular winning Presidents in all but one election in the past 50 years. The GOP will have popular winning candidates in the future, as well, regardless of the fate of the EC.

[Renathras]

ISIS in the middle east is worse than fundamentalist Christianity in the US. Doesn't change the fact that they're both cancers. Thank god the Christian extremists aren't as violent or brutal as ISIS, but the fact is their hateful rhetoric is a damaging influence to both the GOP and the United States. These are people who want to deny gays marriage, women the choice to chose (through either birth control or abortion,) and try to shove their way of thinking in our schools and our science books and our legislatures.

ISIS is worse, there's no equivalence here, and neither I, nor, I think, Advanta, claimed any.

And note, my ire is for the loud vocal minority of extremist Christians, not the mainstream regulars.

Advanta pretty much did claim so. And is hardly the only person who has. As I said, the "X is just like ISIS" is the new Godwin.

Also, you can hardly say "they're both cancers". There's so much wrong with that statement for me to have to unpack. I'd go into depth with you on this topic if you really wanted to, but I'm not sure you do. It basically comes down to your opinion.

For example, I'm hugely in favor of people having access to contraceptives/birth control. Cheap/free condoms being in every doctor's office and clinic or school/college/university makes sense to me. However, I'm totally 100% opposed to abortion in any case where the mother's life isn't in jeopardy. My reasons go back to two arguments - one scientific and the other personal - for which I can never see it as anything other than murder, and thus I apply the same rules to it that I would to killing another Human being: Self-defense. If the mother's life is in danger, then it's an act of self-defense. But it's not her right to "choose" what she does with "a part of her body". Scientifically, the fetus is clearly not a part of her body, as the fetus' cells are entirely different in DNA than her own, but still also Human, and still very much living tissue. Ergo, it meets all of the qualities that we can point to which say it is a distinct Human. Terminating it, then, is the same as killing another Human. (My personal reasons are personal, but the short version is that a very good friend of mine was almost aborted, and my life would be very different without that person, especially if...something that I can't say.)

So while, to you, that's forcing their will on people, to me, it's a matter of life and death - literally.

Yet, even so, I also realize that it's a big deal to the person - it has both immediate and permanent effects on their bodies, and isn't something everyone can deal with. This is why I, like most moderate Americans, oppose late term abortions but, while not LIKING other abortions, believe that first trimester abortions should be legal, and contraceptives should be available to people. That is the "moderate" position to have.

Likewise, to you , gay marriage being "denied" is a horrible attack on a fundamental right. To me, it's a state's choice thing, and forcing it on all 50 states was the crime. Same with with the bathroom mandate the Obama Administration pushed out to all the states, or the court decisions that have basically said shop owners must do business with events that they disagree with or face punishment, even if they have religious objection to doing so, which is DIRECTLY attacking their rights which the Constitution DID lay out for them in the very first amendment.

But, I also oppose teaching "intelligent design" in schools (mostly because it's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one). But, I also oppose teaching evolution in schools (mostly because the way it's taught in schools is so laughably wrong and devoid of actual science that it may as well be philosophy as well - the strongest arguments for evolution are genetic, and you can't explain that in a 5th grade textbook, so it because this stupid bastardization which is really pretty hokey.)

The extremists on the left - who you probably wouldn't call extremists - are constant with their hateful rhetoric. You know, those people that said Clinton shouldn't have apologized for her "deplorables" comment, and the only thing she did wrong was UNDERSTATING the percentage of Trump's supporters who were?

It's the left who calls people horrible names - unless you believe that calling people racist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, misogynist, etc are compliments? - and attack as "lesser" anyone who disagrees with them.

.

As I said before, the US is a centrist country, and the political left, with their extremist speech codes (political correctness), policies, and desire to force their will, through force of law, on the people in all 50 states - even the 35+ where they can't win in - are the extremists.

For the most part, the people on the right tend to want people and things to be left alone. Most people on the right seem perfectly fine with California making, for example, abortion legal and same sex marriage legal and so on. These people on the right just want to be able to decide, on their local and state levels, what they want.

So if the people in Wyoming or Kansas want to take evolution out of their schools and teach intelligent design, well, if they're a majority, that IS kind of how democracy works. If they want abortion to be nearly illegal and same sex marriage to be illegal, that isn't them being "hateful", that's them having their point of view (with which, you should remember, a lot of women and homosexuals in their communities AGREE WITH). Just as wanting people to have the right to kill babies and force people to be taught evolution in schools is your point of view.

.

It really comes down to, at the end of the day, one man's hero is another man's villain, and then you have all the people in the middle that see them both as villains. Like in Supernatural, Lucifer is definitely from hell and Michael from heaven, but their war with each other endangered the people on EARTH, who would have been just as happy for the two to call a truce and leave them out of it.

Likewise, most moderate Americans don't like either the far right (all abortions illegal, no same-sex marriage anywhere) positions, but they also don't like the far left (all abortions legal, same sex marriage everywhere), either.

Indeed, one of the most poignant quotes from Ohio from the 2016 election was "We felt like Hillary was more concerned about what bathrooms people were using than jobs."

.

The left needs to back off of both its environmental and its "everything that's not 'traditional' is awesome and everyone should be FORCED to accept this 'diversity' even in school bathrooms!" business. Likewise, the right backing off from its religious positions is clearly still viable - Trump isn't a vanguard of the religious right. The man talks about sleeping around with women and is on his third marriage, and no one honestly believed he's ever read a Bible in his life, much less that it's his "favorite book".

He won because a lot of moderate Americans are frustrated with the militant left's attack on any and all things American, but they also don't buy into the far right's social positions - Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum, after all, is not the President-Elect.

This is something both sides SHOULD (but probably won't) pay attention to:

Americans want a centrist, compromise, America first leadership that places emphasis on jobs and the economy, not social issues.

[cubby]

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. (higher now)

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

It's a good thing that the votes are based on square mileage and not population. Oh, wait . . . .

Btw, most of your information above is wrong - just fyi.

[Annoying]

If sanctuary cities were ended, would the Democrats ever win another election again? They will be ended, illegal immigration will no longer be tolerated and the wall will be built, will the Democrats ever win again? Doesn't look like it! Those that understand why the Electoral College exists understand it's brilliance, without it illegal immigrant havens like California that live in a liberal bubble (and are close to bankruptcy because of it) would dictate the course of the US every election, thank God that's not possible, thank God the founding fathers had more sense than that.

... Undocumented immigrants can't vote, and California has an above average GDP/capita and is nowhere close to bankruptcy with a pretty good debt-to-GDP ratio. Short of supporting the EC, which is a fine opinion to have, nothing in your post makes much sense.

[0ptimo]

[QUOTE=cubby;43573703]It's a good thing that the votes are based on square mileage and not population. Oh, wait . . . .

Btw, most of your information above is wrong

Such as?

[Gestopft]

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Firstly, two million votes in NYC wouldn't "dictate the outcome" any more than two million of the votes she got in Texas. Votes are votes.
Secondly, land doesn't vote. People do.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

Luckily, it takes around ten of the most populous states to reach a majority of the country, even if a candidate gets ALL of the votes. Since that would never happen, candidates would have to stretch well beyond just the ten most populous states. Seeing as there are only really 12 or so "swing" states, the idea that a popular vote would result in more states being ignored doesn't really hold that much water. Urban vs. Rural- perhaps, but if one party starts messaging better in the opposite zone, it will force the other party to adjust their message too.

[Renathras]

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. (higher now)

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

Honestly, the bigger problem shouldn't be geography - acres of land shouldn't decide outcomes.

It's that laws in very different areas don't make sense to impose nationally. Examples:

Guns - In the country, people often carry guns if going on walks around their property so if they run into a poisonous snake or the like, they can shoot it. In densely packed cities, this isn't something that makes sense. So gun laws that make sense in rural areas don't make sense to impose in urban areas (or vice versa).

Transportation - In the country, everyone owns a car. Everyone has a driver's license, some people as young as 14. Traffic density is one car every mile or two, the occasional tractor, and going to see a neighbor or friend can be a several minute drive at highway speeds, much less going to the grocery store, which can be a 20-30 minute drive in some parts of the country. There's so little pollution that the skies are deep blue by day, the stars are dense and bright at night, and you can see 30-50 miles on a clear day - farther if you're in a little Cessna flying around. In the big cities, public transportation abounds: Taxis/Uber, subways, trains, buses. But so does pollution. Traffic density is high, there are pedestrians everywhere, and there are many people that go through their entire lives without ever driving a car, and the skies are covered in a permanent gray haze from all the pollution. So transportation/driving/vehicle standards laws that make sense in rural areas don't make sense in urban ones (and vice versa).

Social/Religious - In rural areas, the population is largely homogeneous. The people are mostly from the same area, some have never traveled more than 60 miles from their homes, never been on an airplane. They tend to hold the same religious and social values. If there was a nativity scene at the town square on government property, no one would bat an eye (this does, indeed, happen all over the country). If their state schools had morning prayer, they wouldn't care, and might even prefer that. Many little city and county councils start their meetings with a prayer. This isn't to say there's no one of a differing religious or social perspective, there aren't any LGBT people, and so on, but even those people there tend largely to agree with the local sentiment regarding such values as same sex marriage being illegal or abortion being largely unavailable. In urban areas and big cities, diversity is the word. Many of those areas even PRIDE themselves on the fact that white people or Christians make up only a minority of their population. They are globalists in the truest sense. They love it. And they believe that everyone should love it. So, social/religious laws that make sense in rural areas don't make sense in urban areas (and vice versa).

Economic - In rural areas, the economy is dominated by agricultural jobs, people working fields, and repair/maintenance jobs - the big manufacturing plant in so-and-so city, the largest population center in the region. There are small cities that have jobs for accountants and doctors, but this is largely "that kid who was super smart in school that we all knew would make doctor". The bulk of the jobs are blue collar - and the people like it that way. They tend to see most white collar professions as "people that don't do any real work", with a few notable exceptions, and they prefer working with their hands. "Honest work", which they find fulfilling in a way that they'd never find a computer job in a cubicle. In urban areas, manufacturing has all but vanished, and agriculture hasn't been since since before the Great Depression, if not before the Industrial Revolution. They are globalists in the truest sense - international banking, film-making, and internet firms. Multinational corporations that want - no, NEED - international customer bases and supply chains. The idea of protectionist trade policies is a death pact to them. Higher priced goods for them to have to pay more to buy combined with not being as appealing to their foreign customers to buy their product. Their product, by the way, being intellectual property. Many of them don't know how to change a tire, much less change oil or milk a cow. No, their skills are highly technical. Their "hands on" approach being coding software or arguing for the next big deal. The thought of working in a field or in a car garage (as in a business, not a home garage) and getting sweaty and oily and gross isn't at all appealing. In fact, they can't see how anyone WOULD want that kind of work. Isn't it obvious (to them) that everyone would be better if we got past those jobs and everyone was a software engineer or worked at a crisp, clean, efficient plant making solar cells? So...laws governing jobs, the economy, etc for rural areas don't make sense in urban areas (and vice versa).

.

These specific examples are my attempt at making a point (as someone who's lived both in the country and in the city, has known and seen both rural people and urban people):

Local government is best.

The problem is that BOTH parties (though I blame the Democrats more on this one) have decided to make laws at the FEDERAL level that impact everyone, everywhere in the country. But, many of these laws just don't work everywhere. Moreover, in many places, the cause agitation - forcing gay marriage on people in rural areas is just as unpalatable to them as outlawing gay marriage would be to people in urban areas, likewise outlawing guns in rural areas is just as jarring to those people as making gun ownership mandatory by law in urban areas would be.

What our "leaders" need to recognize is that the FEDERAL government's job is dealing with international issues - diplomacy, national security, wars.

The STATE government and LOCAL government's job is dealing with what people want/need at home and in their communities.

.

But, because the FEDERAL government now has its hands in LOCAL issues (schools, medical care, marriage law, gun laws - everything!), you have the problem that if urban areas decide the FEDERAL outcome, laws that make sense in urban areas are also "forced" on rural areas, where they don't make sense. When you have rural areas decide the FEDERAL outcome, laws that make sense in rural areas are also "forced" on urban areas, where they don't make sense.

What we need to do is DRASTICALLY decrease the scope of the federal government's involvement on the local level and let that power go back to the people, not the Supreme Court (which is only supposed to be rarely used) or the federal government, which ends up in large people essentially being "oppressed" in what is supposed to be a free society.

What's even better is, if we did this, then people could simply move to the areas where they like the laws best. Then, the most people will be fairly represented, and able to live in relative peace with laws and social/economic policies that they both understand and desire.

...the worst of all possible things is basically what we have - federal officials (often unelected ones) forcing laws and policies on the entire nation that large portions of the nation not only don't like, but that it doesn't even make sense to impose on them.

[Deleted]

Dropping the Religious Right would be a great way to start.

I mean, is the voting block of fundamentalist Christians still so great the GOP needs to keep this cancer?

These people have many many children and they always vote. (I think)

They help conservatives reach their goals and thus must be pandered to. Besides preserving the Christian roots in our country is a hallmark of conservatism, in case you didn't know that. Perhaps not so much fundamentalism, but eh. I'd also like to mention that your definition of fundamentalist may be flawed. Being against abortion for example doesn't make you a fundamentalist? The term you were looking for was Evangelicals.


OT: Republicans have won plenty of popular votes before. Now if the democrats had it their way and granted amnesty to millions of illegals, you bet the Republicans wouldn't win again anytime soon (until they can get the children's children of said illegals to vote for them). But at that point we wouldn't be the USA anymore as far as I'm concerned, we'd be the United States of Latin America, where both Black and especially White Americans (i.e: descendants of Western and Northern European immigrants, plenty of Hispanics are White as in Caucasian) would soon be minorities, aka the regressive self loathing left's wet dream and the death of our culture.

[Renathras]

... Undocumented immigrants can't vote, and California has an above average GDP/capita and is nowhere close to bankruptcy with a pretty good debt-to-GDP ratio. Short of supporting the EC, which is a fine opinion to have, nothing in your post makes much sense.

Actually...this isn't exactly true.

Illegal aliens (why people call them "undocumented immigrants" is beyond me - most have lots of documentation, they're just not here legally. Illegal immigrant is at least rationally acceptable...) aren't allowed to vote by law in California, this is true.

...the thing is, due to no voter ID laws in California, no one checks. Illegal immigrants ARE allowed to get drivers' licenses in California. On the forms, there is a box for if you want to register to vote. This box has a note that if you aren't eligible to vote (e.g. illegal immigrant, convicted felon, etc), you can't check it...but no one physically stops you from checking it. Further, the election offices don't verify the status of the person checking it. When you get the DL, if you check the box, there's no "second checker" somewhere that verifies it. What happens is the California DL gets issued, and their transportation department sends your info to the elections department, which then registers you to vote.

So an illegal immigrant could get a drivers' license in California, check the box, and then they get registered to vote.

Now, their license does have a tag that says they aren't legal citizens...but, again, California has no voter ID laws. So when they go to cast a vote on election day (remember, they're already registered to vote, even though it's illegal), they don't have to show ID, meaning they don't have to reveal they're not legal to vote. All they have to do is have their registration, which, again, they got through the drivers' license form, even though it wasn't legal to do so.

.

So in the strictest sense...your post should be changed in either of the two following ways:

"... Undocumented immigrants can't LEGALLY vote."
"... Undocumented immigrants CAN vote."

There's nothing actually stopping them, so they CAN physically and administratively vote just fine. They're violating the law to do so, or to even register, but there's no voter ID law, so no one checks, and there's no second-check process in place when the DL forms are sent over to the election department in California.

[Ahovv]

I honestly feel that if the electoral college were abolished the way all these liberals want it to be that the republicans would literally never win another election for the rest of all history and time.

Kinda need the electoral college so republicans can get turns with the whitehouse honestly?

Liberal democrat voters will always win the popular vote as far as I'm concerned

I'm sure you wish that would happen, but most likely it wouldn't.

You need to keep in mind the current game is played by campaigning primarily in swing states. Getting a plurality of the votes is all that matters in those states. Thus, the candidates play around this concept.

If the system was changed you can expect a drastic difference in how candidates sort their time, money and effort. For example, California would see a huge increase in Republican efforts. And before someone responds claiming that nothing would ever change California, again, the game would no longer be about a plurality in these states. Even swinging a few percentage points would be huge in helping a Republican, and likewise Democrats would campaign more in the South, and midwestern states.

With how close this past election was in terms of popular vote (and considering neither campaign was focusing on gaining popular vote) there is absolutely no basis to say a popular vote methodology for determining president would always favor a Democratic candidate.

[Shoat]

Of course in a democracy the faction that represents the interests of FEWER people and gets voted for by FEWER people should NEVER be in control.
Anything else would be a poorly designed system... Oh wait, here you are, for the 4th time in the history of your nation, with a president in office whom less than half of the people voted for (I'll reserve specific criticism of that creature since that's not what this thread's about).

There are so many systematic flaws in the structure of your government (only two parties, obvious bribery and corruption everywhere, 1st amendmend protects hatred as much as it protects protection-worthy free speech, 2nd amendmend exists, too much religion in laws, all politicians waste 1/2 of their time in office and many million dollars for election campaigning bullshit etc.), the biggest one is the complete and utter inability to EVER re-build it to be better. 2x4 years with a 2-year-long inability-to-govern-due-to-wasting-time-campaigning-for-re-election nonsense inbetween is not enough time to get anything of this scale done, on top of the multiple 2/3 majorities required in multiple governing bodies.

The shit's over 200 years old now and there's no way of peaceful reform in sight. It's frustrating to watch even from the safe distance of half a world away.

[Moralgy]

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. (higher now)

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

So the minority population of a country should decide who wins an election just because they own more miles of land?

[Paranoid Android]

I honestly feel that if the electoral college were abolished the way all these liberals want it to be that the republicans would literally never win another election for the rest of all history and time.

Kinda need the electoral college so republicans can get turns with the whitehouse honestly?

Liberal democrat voters will always win the popular vote as far as I'm concerned

So you are saying the system would be rigged if we didn't have the EC. So you like that the system is rigged now for one party. Listen, I know you are probably just throwing the question out there, but that is how it is.

The simple answer would be have Republicans actually work to get more votes of an ever growing diverse electorate. You can surely break this down in many different ways but at least with the Dems their electorate is pretty diverse.

Just for argument sakes. Black voters vote Democrat at 80% and above. Republicans honestly do not give any credence to black votes except the worldwide; "less regulation, tax cuts". So black votes in our shit two party system have no where to go but to the Dems. Obviously the Dems take this for granted, but it would be stupid probably for black voters split into some third party.

[Deleted]

So the minority population of a country should decide who wins an election just because they own more miles of land?

There is a thread for discussing the EC. This thread isn't it.