Don’t need to. Just need more states to convert from winner take all to proportional electors based on votes.
2 Likes
SNL treated Bush like he was seriously retarded and had no ethics.
My goodness…all the salty tears.
I see you’ve punted on answering my question(s). Also, i mentioned GHW Bush, not his son.
and what happened?
“Not at all,” the former president responded on Jimmy Kimmel Live! on Thursday night when asked if the impressions ever bothered him. He recounted a story about how Ferrell’s impression was so good, he even thought he had said some of the lines from it.
States are disincentivize from adopting a proportional allocation of electors based on votes.
States that are solidly in one political side, like California, aren’t generally interested in sharing the electoral vote with the losing side. Even 30% of the electoral votes from California for the Republicans would be more than they’re likely to ever going get under the current system.
States that are swing states currently get a lot of targeted campaigning, due to the high stakes nature of the contest. A little bit of investment has the potential to change whether you win all the EVs or 0. If this type of state changes to proportional allocation, the candidate that is currently polling at 49% might figure it’s not important to gain a few percentage points, and instead spends their time/money on a state where they have better chance at big gains. Probably in a state that still has winner take all.
–
Personally, I’m watching the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. When enough states to equal 270 agree to the compact, all of them will switch to assigning their electoral votes based on the national popular vote.
If every state went to proportional electors, then there would be no more swing states.
And wouldn’t candidates transfer much more of their cash to national commercials?
I don’t even know why they would do campaign stops anymore, except in the biggest metropolitan areas.
Is this thinking wrong? If so, no way, you’re wrong!
1 Like
I like the ineterstate compact, too.
It’s a little fraught, though. All you need is one state to pull out of it at the last minute to really ■■■■ things up. I don’t know if hte language used by the enabling legislation prevents that.
Yeah, I could see that happening. Things are bad, and I fear they’re going to get worse before/if they get better.
Things will never get better.
At least I live in California. If America breaks apart, California can survive without the rest of you guys. I’ll keep doing what I’m doing now, but I’ll transition into small scale farming.
1 Like
Not correct. Hillary did not get a majority of the vote. She got 48 percent of the vote, Trump got 46 percent of the vote.
Johnson got 3.2 percent.
That changes everything.
1 Like
Trump is the clown who can dish it out, but can’t take it. And those people are the worst, aren’t they?
1 Like
Just happened to watch that interview recently. Bush’s tenor was a surprise. Certainly compared to the Orange Doofus, Bush came across as a human being.
1 Like
Lockbox.
10lockboxes
That’s what baffles me. It truly does reveal just how big of an idiot he really is. Substantially well below average intellect and zero intellectual curiosity. You’d think someone close to him would have used this as the way to get him to stop. Instead of telling him it upsets people, tell him the truth. It makes him look like a moron.
Here’s a list of the States that existed when the founding fathers ratified our constitution…
- Delaware
- Pennsylvania
- New Jersey
- Georgia
- Connecticut
- Massachusetts
- Maryland
- South Carolina
- New Hampshire
- Virginia
- New York
- North Carolina
- Rhode Island
6 Likes
Then all those illegal voters in California could start canceling votes in red states. Of course progressive liberals would love that.
All the illegal votes in North Carolina could start canceling real votes from blue states. Of course, that’s the reason Republicans cheat to win elections.
1 Like
