One thing I can’t understand is why people continue to support a system the disenfranchises voters from both political parties when it comes to presidential elections. If you are in a state that is going to go for the democratic presidential candidate (like for example California) you have little incentive to vote at all if you know your vote is not going to count. The same is true for states that will go for the republican candidate and you want to cast your vote for the democratic one.
The electoral college, as it is implemented by most states now, makes many people believe that their vote does not count for any kind of election, and discourages them from taking part in any type of political activity. If more states went with having the number of votes cast by electors be representative of the percentage of people that voted for each candidate, then I believe more people would be inclined to vote for president in particular, and for other issues in general because they see that it does make a difference to do so.
New Hampshire Democrat Terie Norelli stated “Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote receiving more votes than any white men in our history.” Typically dumb Democrat, she completely forgets that the size of the electorate greatly increases with each election and that statistically, when adjusted to reflect that, Clinton is in the lower half of those candidates who received the greatest proportion of the popular vote. In other words Hillary has nothing to brag about.
I’m still awaiting those threads celebrating the cabinet choices of their Fearless Leader (who got a couple million fewer votes than Hillary). And his Presidential demeanor. And the cool intelligence with which he’ll meet any crisis…
And my other favorite. Local fire/police department/city hall faces budget crisis! They will be short 10 million dollars!
Well, you news turds…is it 10 million outa 15 million or outa 100 million or 500 million. Ones a fricking disaster, the other is “cut back on buying so much extra toilet paper”