On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 8:23:29 PM UTC-5, Martin Eastburn wrote:
The electors are elected by state by the voting public.
NOT just people who live there, want to or has a voting card.

The constitution allows only the electors to elect a president.

The popular vote by state is to elect electors.

The total popular vote is just for fun. It means NOTHING. Never
intended for anything. It was well known that population movement and
the expanding west required a leveling of the vote.

Consider the land rush. Unknown response. Consider the Homestead of
1000 acres. Unknown response. If a flood of people went west - it
did, both by 'go west my son...' and later Gold. The Northeast lost
hundreds of Ships/crew/men/property/wealth as everyone jumped to the
West Coast. After WW II, the Pacific Army / Marines stayed west.
Dust bowl - moved further west after the government caused the dust bowl.

There was no land rush, nor gold rush, nor any western "flood" of people when the Electoral College was established (1787) nor when it was modified when the 12th Amendment was ratified. (1804).

The plan was worked out by a committee from among several alternatives, including direct election, in 1787. As Rudy said, the 3/5 rule for slaves was part of it -- possibly the determining part.

--
Ed Huntress


Moto-voter gave voting cards to green card and temp visa owners.
A lot of people in Ca are voting illegal if they vote.

I had a good friend that was Japanese and he was here for 6 months.
Had to get a license as AAA wasn't enough. He showed me his voting
card and laughed, he was slated to be back in Japan to vote there.

Martin

On 12/22/2016 3:09 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 a difference of 3.4 million, not 4.3.

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."