Author Topic: Is this how Obama will steal election?  (Read 13713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kohler

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-3
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2012, 05:09:50 PM »
No. 

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states, and been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!

NOW, voters in dozens of states are irrelevant.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree that, at most, only 6-12 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. At most, 12 states will determine the election. Candidates will not care about at least 76% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning could be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election.

The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome. It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.

National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.”

Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.

National Popular Vote’s National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressman John Buchanan (R–AL).

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote “ include:

Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican,
Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

Offline kohler

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-3
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2012, 05:12:40 PM »
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

Offline kohler

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-3
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2012, 05:13:57 PM »
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio
and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. More than 2/3rds of states and voters are ignored.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are
non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

Of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states – NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) – got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states.
In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

Offline kohler

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-3
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2012, 05:14:48 PM »
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question.  In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey).  The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country.  For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 
   
Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic). 

In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally.  Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000  "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).  Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1661/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2012, 05:14:56 PM »
Popular vote is one step away from mob rule.
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.

Offline kohler

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-3
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2012, 05:17:13 PM »
The whole thing is a non issue because there will probably never be another EV/PV mismatch in our lifetimes.
The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II.  Near misses are now frequently common.  There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.    

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1661/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2012, 05:19:13 PM »
The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II.  Near misses are now frequently common.  There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.    
60,000 is more than one sixth of the overall vote deficit. That ratio would be more troubling if it was one fiftieth.
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.

Offline kohler

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-3
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2012, 05:24:43 PM »
Before we all start hyperventilating staring into this abyss, remember that the Electoral College is written into the core of the Constitution.  It would require an amendment of the Constitution - ratified by more than the 14 most populous states of the union - in order to negate the electoral vote.  There is no possible way - not even with an EXECUTIVE ORDER from The Holy WON of Chicago - the moonbats could get that orchestrated in the eighty some odd days left before the election.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states).

National Popular Vote does not negate the Electoral College vote. National Popular Vote does not change the Constitution.  National Popular Vote does not need an amendment.

The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states.  That majority of ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

Offline Kyle Ricky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7596
  • Reputation: +614/-1086
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2012, 05:26:07 PM »
Welcome to the forum, Kohler. Did you introduce yourself in the introduction thread?

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1661/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2012, 05:28:00 PM »
Welcome to the forum, Kohler. Did you introduce yourself in the introduction thread?


Good call.
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.

Offline kohler

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-3
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2012, 05:37:23 PM »
Popular vote is one step away from mob rule.
National Popular Vote ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
   
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states.  12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.   9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia).  Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. At most, 12 states in 2012 will determine the election.

Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate.  Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

NationalPopularVote

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1661/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2012, 05:38:23 PM »
Pure democracy is mob rule.
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1292/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2012, 05:39:14 PM »
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states).

National Popular Vote does not negate the Electoral College vote. National Popular Vote does not change the Constitution.  National Popular Vote does not need an amendment.

The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states.  That majority of ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote


Oh goody...just in time for the weekend...a new chewtoy.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1292/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2012, 05:40:31 PM »
Pure democracy is mob rule.

But dammit..how else do you expect the Libs to finally do away with that pesky Republican party once and for all and ensure one party rule forever?
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline Kyle Ricky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7596
  • Reputation: +614/-1086
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #39 on: August 10, 2012, 05:43:07 PM »
After reading all of that. I still don't agree with the popular vote; and still feel it eliminates the other 37 states.

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1661/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #40 on: August 10, 2012, 05:43:13 PM »
But dammit..how else do you expect the Libs to finally do away with that pesky Republican party once and for all and ensure one party rule forever?
We could be off course heading towards "voter fraud".
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.

Offline Kyle Ricky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7596
  • Reputation: +614/-1086
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #41 on: August 10, 2012, 05:44:44 PM »
We could be off course heading towards "voter fraud".

What do you mean heading for it? Voter fraud is what the liberals are all about.

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1661/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #42 on: August 10, 2012, 05:45:21 PM »
What do you mean heading for it? Voter fraud is what the liberals are all about.
No that kind. The Danglar's kind.
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.

Offline kohler

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-3
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #43 on: August 10, 2012, 05:47:57 PM »
Pure democracy is mob rule.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. 
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. 

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a representative democracy, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

Offline kohler

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-3
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #44 on: August 10, 2012, 05:49:56 PM »
After reading all of that. I still don't agree with the popular vote; and still feel it eliminates the other 37 states.
No state would be "eliminated."

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.  That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

Offline Kyle Ricky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7596
  • Reputation: +614/-1086
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #45 on: August 10, 2012, 05:52:51 PM »
No state would be "eliminated."

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.  That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

It will be based on the top populated states, leaving the rest out.

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1661/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #46 on: August 10, 2012, 05:53:02 PM »
No state would be "eliminated."

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.  That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
That is not at all in keeping with the philosophy of the founders.
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1292/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #47 on: August 10, 2012, 05:58:35 PM »
No state would be "eliminated."

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.  That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.


This is just another libtard scheme to ensure they keep getting elected even when the people don't want them.

Only libtards bring this crap up...usually right before or right after one of their major candidates for office gets their ass handed to them.

Notice how you never hear about this stuff when Dems are winning or have super majorities in Congress.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1292/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #48 on: August 10, 2012, 06:00:06 PM »
That is not at all in keeping with the philosophy of the founders.

That's because this troll has no need for or belief in the Founding Fathers.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline rich_t

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7942
  • Reputation: +386/-429
  • TANSTAAFL
Re: Is this how Obama will steal election?
« Reply #49 on: August 10, 2012, 06:03:58 PM »
I see we have a copy/paste puppet.

I thought a lot of his text looked awful familiar.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." --Norman Thomas, 1944