On 12/22/2016 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 3:29:23 PM UTC-5, Dechucka wrote:
The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

That's false. There is something legitimately wrong with the person
winning the presidency not having won a majority of the popular vote.

Sorry, but that is why we have the EC. Example. Hillary won the popular
vote by 2.4 million. She won California by 4.3 million. Without
California, she would have lost that popular vote by 2.1 million. Do you
wish to have the winner in California consistantly define our President?

That is illogical. California has about 10% of the US population which I
assume means 10% of votors

It's also wrong. The official vote totals were 7,362,490 for Clinton and 3,916,209 for Trump.

That's wrong. The official certified vote count by the California
Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, is:

Clinton 8,753,788 61.7%
Trump 4,483,810 31.6%
Johnson 478,500 3.4%
Stein 278,657 2.0%
Sanders 79,341 0.6%
La Riva 66,101 0.5%
McMullin 39,596 0.3%
Maturen 1,316 0.0%
Kotlikoff 402 0.0%
White 84 0.0%
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/...mplete-sov.pdf

The total number of votes case was about 14.2 million. Nationwide,
about 137 million votes were cast, so California's votes were about
10.4% of the total.

As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

One person, one vote. "The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people..." -- James Madison, Federalist #39. The Founders did not say "the states." They said "the people."

This bull**** about "California" determining the election result is
completely specious. Suppose 75% of the population of the entire
country were in California. Why *shouldn't* the vote in California
determine who is president?

What people are really complaining about is that California voters tilt
heavily to the Democrats, which to *EVERY ONE* of these whiners about
the popular vote is the "wrong" party. I live in California, and I
don't much like the Democratic tilt, either - in fact, I hate it - but
that doesn't mean that the electoral college serves any legitimate
purpose. I think that, at present, a popular vote system for electing
the president would routinely elect Democrats, despite the fact that
Congress and most states are more Republican, but that's the fault of
the Republicans. If we abolished the electoral college and elected the
president by popular vote, the Republicans would have to start producing
better candidates and ignoring their lunatic fringe. That would be a
good thing.