The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
If We Junked the Electoral College ...
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Screenshot 2016-11-16 18.13.05

California would deign to inform the country who had been elected President by national popular vote by, at the latest, Thanksgiving.

Or, worst case scenario, by Cyber Monday. Tops.

 
Hide 84 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. He really did get smacked in the popular vote, now the 6th time in seven elections that the coalition of the ascendant has won.

    Lucky, small-handed bastard! The illegitimacy will follow him like it did Bush until 2004.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "He really did get smacked in the popular vote.."

    Only if you count the rampant cheating as legitimate. Hillary had a colossal wind in her sails from a constant 1-sided media barrage of distortion against Trump and his supporters, rigging primaries, disrupting Trump rallies, the schools and entertainment industry pushing an anti-Trump message, busing in voters, multiple voters, illegal voters, etc.

    He won, but all of that cheating had to have an effect on their numbers. How much we don't know, although the difference in popular vote between the two even with all the cheating in her favor was quite small, which suggests that in a fair fight he'd have easily won. I don't think we can fairly call it as a Hillary win of the popular vote. Certainly if Trump had cheated like that, they wouldn't call his numbers legitimate.
    , @Hunsdon
    You, too, will come to love the God-Emperor Ascendant. Why so much hate, bro? Open your heart. Let the love flow in. Let's make anonymous great again!
    , @MarkinLA
    Only because of all the illegal aliens voting in California. All you had to do was go to a polling place in a heavily Hispanic area to see all the provisional ballots being cast.
    , @22pp22
    Last I heard, 3 million of Hillary's vote came from illegals.
    , @Olorin
    The framing of your reply attests to you being too dim to comprehend arithmetic.

    That's OK. There's probably a job for you in propaganda, social work, or Studies Studies studies.

    Or "activism."
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    I guess you agree that he will do better in 2020 then, and he won't even need a fake attack on NY to help him.
    , @Mack Bolan
    Take out the illegal votes they have counted so far and Trump take popular vote by 2 million. The dems screwed up ,they had better utilize their illegal vote teams more strategically.
    But as they found out in NC there's only so much a guy with a pencil is going to do for $35.
  2. Our Founding Fathers get more impressive with each current media discussion of issues.

    • Agree: NickG, Old fogey
    • Replies: @Olorin
    They were not urban-hive men.

    They knew what population centers wrought politically, socially, and morally.
  3. Many Absentee ballots are not counted in states that are not close. That could affect the National count.

  4. Vote early and vote often and then count late, and count often ’till you win…

    I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next election UN observers would conclude their mission with sending footages of shiny happy Californians flashing their freshly purple-inked thumbs to cameras.

    Exceptional, my ass.

  5. Two of the people from my office I talked into voting for Bernie still haven’t had their primary votes counted. (This is in Southern California.)

  6. How many illegals voted ?
    How many dead people ?
    How many “multiple time voters” ?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "How many dead people ?"

    You know, it's truly an incredible phenomena. You have these elderly whites who solidly vote Republican passing away each year, then they miraculously come back to life a few years later and vote solidly for Democrats. And their time under the earth was not time wasted; Many arise knowing how to fluently read ballots written in Spanish.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Things to do when your dead:

    1.) Become a Mormon

    2.) Vote Democrat

    3.) Become the kind of Republican that Democrats like

    .....................................

    , @pyrrhus
    Many many...and that's just in CA...
  7. Make the Dems a deal. We’ll get rid of the electoral college, if they agree to proof of citizenship to vote.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Bad deal for Republicans because so many Millennials are in thrall to the political Left.
    , @Coemgen
    Better deal: link voting to tax paying. Only net contributors would be allowed to vote. Everyone else is a charity case and should be treated as such (i.e., as a dependent not a head-of-household).
    , @Pericles
    I think I know which half of that deal will be enforced, and which half won't.
  8. Trump’s tweet on the Electoral College, covered on this site in an earlier post, actually restates the argument Nate Silver made in the issue. I doubt Trump reads 538, but who knows?

    Silver addressed why the recent instances where the popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College (2016, 2000, and arguably 1960) has not been that big a deal. He pointed out that these were fairly narrow popular vote pluralities, not majorities. Without the Electoral College the campaign strategies of both candidates would have been different and the popular vote would have changed. Also, countries that elect their Presidents by popular vote -one thing I find strange about pro-Electoral College arguments is that it is used only for US presidential elections, if it was really such a great idea you think that other countries and the US states would have set up something similar for their own elections- almost always require majorities, with a run-off between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority in the first round. In this particular election, Trump would have been in a good position going into the runoff, especially if its true that Libertarian voters tend to be Republican leaning.

    These arguments also assume that fraud isn’t rampant in American elections or that the fraud committed by both major parties always balances out.

    The Electoral College also effectively disenfranchises red state types who live in metropolitan areas in certain regions of the country.

    Incidentally, I partially disagree with the notion that the Hillary Clinton campaign was a disaster. She did get more votes, which is what campaigns are supposed to accomplish, and came very close to winning in enough states to win the Electoral College count. However, her campaign had overwhelming advantages over Trump in campaign funds and media bias. A campaign with a five to one spending advantage and the media in its favor pretty much always wins, and the Clinton campaign did get the most votes.

    Ran Prieur blogged recently that one thing Trump should do in his first hundred days is propose alot of common sense, not so partisan ideas that never get implemented because of path dependency. He mentioned getting rid of the penny and daylight savings time. Moving to electing the president by popular vote, but requiring a majority, would fall into this category. Its come up before but could actually happen this time. The interstate compact to award electoral votes to the (plurality) popular vote winner is getting enough support that we will probably lose the EC anyway.

    • Replies: @CrunchybutRealistCon
    "common sense" = 50 state compliance with the Real ID act. For flying, buying booze, & voting
    , @Dave Pinsen
    In a popular vote contest, it would have been easier for Trump to raise his numbers than Hillary. Trump could have done rallies in basketball arenas in cities like New York, San Diego, and Los Angeles. Hillary would have had to hit a lot more red states to get in front of the same number of voters.
    , @Busby
    1. Most countries that elect a President by popular vote don't have a president who is both head of state and head of government.
    2. No country that has a popular or republican executive and legislature has operated under the same charter for the past 229 years, except ours
    3. Democratic elections in early America were conducted to elect state legislators. State legislatures elected governors, not the public. In part, the EC was intended to be a check on Congress, to ensure the President had an independent grant of authority. In the early days, most electors were appointed by the state legislature.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Your assertions are just another attempt to advantage the idiots that live in urban areas over the rest of America. Urban centers are ruled by incest, vice and stupidity. Your notion of common sense could only be offered from the febrile state of a fevered mind. If you were in charge a decade of your supervision would reduce humanity to the stone age.
    , @Kyle
    If we get rid of the penny how are we supposed to pay for a soda that costs $1.01.
    Of what if something cost $1.01 and you have a $20, you're gonna Want to pay $20.01 so you get $19 back cleanly.
    There is a point to the penny, it isn't pointless. Just because you throw yours out, or that it's worth less than it costs to make, doesn't mean that it isn't valuable. Stop living in your own bubble, some people don't have credit cards, or like paying in cash for various reasons.
    There is no pressing reason to get rid of the penny.
    , @Andrew

    The interstate compact to award electoral votes to the (plurality) popular vote winner is getting enough support that we will probably lose the EC anyway.
     
    It's most likely that this compact will be declared unconstitutional if it is ever attempted to be implemented. States cannot legally bind their electors based on public sentiment outside their state borders. There is no instance of a state doing anything but appointing electors based on state popular vote or indirect state popular vote via a vote of their democratically elected legislature.

    http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview

    Its is just a scheme by the Democratic states to magnify their political power (which is already magnified by their huge numbers of non-citizen residents increasing their electoral vote power), as is obvious from which states have adopted it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
    , @Anon
    "one thing I find strange about pro-Electoral College arguments is that it is used only for US presidential elections, if it was really such a great idea you think that other countries and the US states would have set up something similar for their own elections"

    Actually, they do -- it's called "parliamentary democracy." It's what every other country (well, democratic ones) have, not the primitive US system, which, as you point out, uses it only once, for the Electoral College.
  9. What is the excuse for why it takes so long to count the ballots? Have they ever given one?

  10. California no longer a world leader in technology & efficiency? The collective brainpower @ Google-Fbk-Yahoo-Apple-eBay-Oracle can’t help Cal’s Secretary of State to modernize the process? Any chance it has something to do with the concerns of Scott Foval, Bob Creamer or Donna Brazile ? Maybe Donna is faxing over ‘how to’ instructions tonight.

  11. @eD
    Trump's tweet on the Electoral College, covered on this site in an earlier post, actually restates the argument Nate Silver made in the issue. I doubt Trump reads 538, but who knows?

    Silver addressed why the recent instances where the popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College (2016, 2000, and arguably 1960) has not been that big a deal. He pointed out that these were fairly narrow popular vote pluralities, not majorities. Without the Electoral College the campaign strategies of both candidates would have been different and the popular vote would have changed. Also, countries that elect their Presidents by popular vote -one thing I find strange about pro-Electoral College arguments is that it is used only for US presidential elections, if it was really such a great idea you think that other countries and the US states would have set up something similar for their own elections- almost always require majorities, with a run-off between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority in the first round. In this particular election, Trump would have been in a good position going into the runoff, especially if its true that Libertarian voters tend to be Republican leaning.

    These arguments also assume that fraud isn't rampant in American elections or that the fraud committed by both major parties always balances out.

    The Electoral College also effectively disenfranchises red state types who live in metropolitan areas in certain regions of the country.

    Incidentally, I partially disagree with the notion that the Hillary Clinton campaign was a disaster. She did get more votes, which is what campaigns are supposed to accomplish, and came very close to winning in enough states to win the Electoral College count. However, her campaign had overwhelming advantages over Trump in campaign funds and media bias. A campaign with a five to one spending advantage and the media in its favor pretty much always wins, and the Clinton campaign did get the most votes.

    Ran Prieur blogged recently that one thing Trump should do in his first hundred days is propose alot of common sense, not so partisan ideas that never get implemented because of path dependency. He mentioned getting rid of the penny and daylight savings time. Moving to electing the president by popular vote, but requiring a majority, would fall into this category. Its come up before but could actually happen this time. The interstate compact to award electoral votes to the (plurality) popular vote winner is getting enough support that we will probably lose the EC anyway.

    “common sense” = 50 state compliance with the Real ID act. For flying, buying booze, & voting

  12. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The donk popular vote is stuffed to the gills with fraud. Various and sundry types of fraud. John Fund’s book lays it out and it’s not pretty!

    Plus there was the recent atrocity where Jerry Brown gave the illegals driver licenses.

    After Obama’s outrageous interview in the week before the election where he encouraged illegals to vote the question should be: How many illegals in California who tried to vote were actually denied? Zero?

    Democrat pop vote total is padded with 2 million rotten votes minimum. Ask the guy from the O’Keefe videos (after a couple shots of tequila). The truth is plain ugly.

    • Replies: @CrunchybutRealistCon
    2020 scenario: Congress has enacted toughened nation-wide voter ID laws but Jerry Brown & Sacramento refuse to comply. California & other noncompliant states are 'quarantined' out of the electoral college. Eventually a SCOTUS emboldened by Trump-appointments orders a federal take over of the state's electoral voting practices. Scenes reminiscent of ravaged Venezuela play out in LA, Santa Ana, & Fontana.
    , @Olorin
    It's just one more step on the Yellow Brick Road to the Emerald City where the poll (voting in the classical sense, with all its structures and restructions) is converted into polling in the age of cell phones.

    It's not accidental that the party is called Demos-crats. They truly are a globo-elite setting up mob rule that can be guided to their own ends.

    They have sought to implement this over the past 100 years of specific and centralized mass/automated communication. There is no sense to it. It's what they do, like cancer cells or Ebola viruses.

    Only hope I have ever seen, back to the 1980s, is fragmenting centralized control and use of media. A far more (small-r) republican endeavor by nature.
  13. Wow, it’s almost as if California is a Latin American country where basic governmental functions like vote counting don’t work very well.

  14. @eD
    Trump's tweet on the Electoral College, covered on this site in an earlier post, actually restates the argument Nate Silver made in the issue. I doubt Trump reads 538, but who knows?

    Silver addressed why the recent instances where the popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College (2016, 2000, and arguably 1960) has not been that big a deal. He pointed out that these were fairly narrow popular vote pluralities, not majorities. Without the Electoral College the campaign strategies of both candidates would have been different and the popular vote would have changed. Also, countries that elect their Presidents by popular vote -one thing I find strange about pro-Electoral College arguments is that it is used only for US presidential elections, if it was really such a great idea you think that other countries and the US states would have set up something similar for their own elections- almost always require majorities, with a run-off between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority in the first round. In this particular election, Trump would have been in a good position going into the runoff, especially if its true that Libertarian voters tend to be Republican leaning.

    These arguments also assume that fraud isn't rampant in American elections or that the fraud committed by both major parties always balances out.

    The Electoral College also effectively disenfranchises red state types who live in metropolitan areas in certain regions of the country.

    Incidentally, I partially disagree with the notion that the Hillary Clinton campaign was a disaster. She did get more votes, which is what campaigns are supposed to accomplish, and came very close to winning in enough states to win the Electoral College count. However, her campaign had overwhelming advantages over Trump in campaign funds and media bias. A campaign with a five to one spending advantage and the media in its favor pretty much always wins, and the Clinton campaign did get the most votes.

    Ran Prieur blogged recently that one thing Trump should do in his first hundred days is propose alot of common sense, not so partisan ideas that never get implemented because of path dependency. He mentioned getting rid of the penny and daylight savings time. Moving to electing the president by popular vote, but requiring a majority, would fall into this category. Its come up before but could actually happen this time. The interstate compact to award electoral votes to the (plurality) popular vote winner is getting enough support that we will probably lose the EC anyway.

    In a popular vote contest, it would have been easier for Trump to raise his numbers than Hillary. Trump could have done rallies in basketball arenas in cities like New York, San Diego, and Los Angeles. Hillary would have had to hit a lot more red states to get in front of the same number of voters.

  15. “Or, worst case scenario, by Cyber Monday. Tops.”

    Ironically, Nov. 28 is the date when MI’s 16 electoral votes finally will be awarded to (presumably) Trump.

  16. California has a quasi-third world government to match its quasi-third world population.

    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    California has a quasi-third world government to match its quasi-third world population.
     
    Absolutely.

    I wonder what California's GENI coefficient is.

    SJW's want to know.
  17. @eD
    Trump's tweet on the Electoral College, covered on this site in an earlier post, actually restates the argument Nate Silver made in the issue. I doubt Trump reads 538, but who knows?

    Silver addressed why the recent instances where the popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College (2016, 2000, and arguably 1960) has not been that big a deal. He pointed out that these were fairly narrow popular vote pluralities, not majorities. Without the Electoral College the campaign strategies of both candidates would have been different and the popular vote would have changed. Also, countries that elect their Presidents by popular vote -one thing I find strange about pro-Electoral College arguments is that it is used only for US presidential elections, if it was really such a great idea you think that other countries and the US states would have set up something similar for their own elections- almost always require majorities, with a run-off between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority in the first round. In this particular election, Trump would have been in a good position going into the runoff, especially if its true that Libertarian voters tend to be Republican leaning.

    These arguments also assume that fraud isn't rampant in American elections or that the fraud committed by both major parties always balances out.

    The Electoral College also effectively disenfranchises red state types who live in metropolitan areas in certain regions of the country.

    Incidentally, I partially disagree with the notion that the Hillary Clinton campaign was a disaster. She did get more votes, which is what campaigns are supposed to accomplish, and came very close to winning in enough states to win the Electoral College count. However, her campaign had overwhelming advantages over Trump in campaign funds and media bias. A campaign with a five to one spending advantage and the media in its favor pretty much always wins, and the Clinton campaign did get the most votes.

    Ran Prieur blogged recently that one thing Trump should do in his first hundred days is propose alot of common sense, not so partisan ideas that never get implemented because of path dependency. He mentioned getting rid of the penny and daylight savings time. Moving to electing the president by popular vote, but requiring a majority, would fall into this category. Its come up before but could actually happen this time. The interstate compact to award electoral votes to the (plurality) popular vote winner is getting enough support that we will probably lose the EC anyway.

    1. Most countries that elect a President by popular vote don’t have a president who is both head of state and head of government.
    2. No country that has a popular or republican executive and legislature has operated under the same charter for the past 229 years, except ours
    3. Democratic elections in early America were conducted to elect state legislators. State legislatures elected governors, not the public. In part, the EC was intended to be a check on Congress, to ensure the President had an independent grant of authority. In the early days, most electors were appointed by the state legislature.

  18. If the presidency were awarded to the winner of the popular vote there’s no way Trump could’ve beaten Hillary. She would’ve had a huge advantage among all 18 million voters in Chicago, all 35 million voters in New York, and all 257 million voters in California.

    I’d be happy to get rid of the electoral college, but it would mean a whole host of changes related to immigration and combating voter fraud that Democrats would never agree to in a million years.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    If the presidency were awarded to the winner of the popular vote there’s no way Trump could’ve beaten Hillary.
     
    Wrong. If you count all the votes cast, and excluded the fraudulent votes, Trump wins handily. You have succumbed to the Leftist sirens.

    I’d be happy to get rid of the electoral college
     
    When their boot is stomping on your face, keep in mind that your shortsightedness ensured their ability to stomp away. Forever.
    , @Lagertha
    to me, the electoral college has always made sense...otherwise, California would always determine the winner forever...and, maybe, yikes, by some dumb people...sorry guys - thinking about those stupid college students and people who don't bother to go to the polls :) Strange thing though, as I look towards my own back nine, many middle/upper middle Californians are moving to Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, etc. So, if California fills up with more and more people seeking social services, and a strong middle/upper middle class tax base disappears, at what point will the wealthy Californians balk? Once police officers would rather work in Texas, what's gonna happen to the wealthy areas of California?

    The electoral college, the winner-takes-all idea, works; works for all 50 states since no state can claim that another is not "American enough." The Rust Belt states basically showed the world that no state, no California/ Pacific Coast states, nor East Coast states can negate and invalidate the people of the Rust Belt..., or the Plains, the South, their very existence; the legacy of the Rust Belt, or the fact that elites from the coasts are directly responsible for the economic collapse of the Rust Belt. Wasn't that the idea, especially after the Civil War ( I confess, in middle school as a new arrival, I didn't understand the Civil War) that the Electoral College would prevent states to secede? That each state had a purpose and contributed to the well being of all? That sticking together and having respect for all states/regions made it the best country in the world and all? I think I was in school during pre-indoctrination phase :)!

    I mean, California, the Pacific States could not survive without water...and having to pay for the police and firemen would be such a bitch! Not to mention, maintaining highways; having an army of some kind? hmmm? electricity? decent airports so planes don't crash?...oh, and paying for those pesky social services that so many people want.

    , @Anonym
    I’d be happy to get rid of the electoral college, but it would mean a whole host of changes related to immigration and combating voter fraud that Democrats would never agree to in a million years.

    Nah. It is an advantage for whites now, and Republicans hold executive, Congress and Senate. What changes require Dem approval now?

    Instead the Republicans must be as brutally effective as the Democrats have been to get as many new Dems who have been granted citizen or resident status by violating the spirit of the law, to have that status revoked. And to eliminate the voter fraud.

    I understand that Dems don't like the EC but it is not that different in the scheme of things to a parliamentary system where a group of arbitrarily divided up areas vote for reps rather than a president, who then choose a prime minister (who is already chosen by the time of the election).

  19. @Anonymous
    The donk popular vote is stuffed to the gills with fraud. Various and sundry types of fraud. John Fund's book lays it out and it's not pretty!

    Plus there was the recent atrocity where Jerry Brown gave the illegals driver licenses.

    After Obama's outrageous interview in the week before the election where he encouraged illegals to vote the question should be: How many illegals in California who tried to vote were actually denied? Zero?

    Democrat pop vote total is padded with 2 million rotten votes minimum. Ask the guy from the O'Keefe videos (after a couple shots of tequila). The truth is plain ugly.

    2020 scenario: Congress has enacted toughened nation-wide voter ID laws but Jerry Brown & Sacramento refuse to comply. California & other noncompliant states are ‘quarantined’ out of the electoral college. Eventually a SCOTUS emboldened by Trump-appointments orders a federal take over of the state’s electoral voting practices. Scenes reminiscent of ravaged Venezuela play out in LA, Santa Ana, & Fontana.

  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The bottom line is the Republicans can’t win without this arcane 18th century mess of a regulation. They’ve only won ONE election fair and square in the last quarter century.

    Whitey ain’t gonna change what benefits whitey; he never has!

    We are about to spend 1 trillion of money we don’t have on “infrastructure” AND cut federal taxes dramatically, just so a dwindling minority race can feel a little good about themselves while this declining place just declines further . Go figure!

    • Troll: reiner Tor, Federalist
    • Replies: @Kyle
    Bring on the decline we have savings, you dont. You're going to get bailed out by us, but I wish we didn't have to. I hope president trump raises interest rates and ruins your personal economy.
    , @Andrew

    The bottom line is the Republicans can’t win without this arcane 18th century mess of a regulation. They’ve only won ONE election fair and square in the last quarter century.
     
    Reminder: from 1948 to 2004, the Democrats won exactly two majorities in the popular vote - 1964 and 1976, while the Republicans got majorities in 1952, 1956, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2004.

    Reminder: No Clinton has ever won a majority of the popular vote.
    , @Pericles

    We are about to spend 1 trillion of money we don’t have on “infrastructure” AND cut federal taxes dramatically, just so a dwindling minority race can feel a little good about themselves

     

    Now you're just being anti-semitic.
    , @WJ
    Were you opposed to the trillion dollar infrastructure bill passed in 2009?

    Considering the legislative dominance of the GOP not just at the federal but also the state and local levels, that "dwindling minority" is punching above it's weight.
  21. @eD
    Trump's tweet on the Electoral College, covered on this site in an earlier post, actually restates the argument Nate Silver made in the issue. I doubt Trump reads 538, but who knows?

    Silver addressed why the recent instances where the popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College (2016, 2000, and arguably 1960) has not been that big a deal. He pointed out that these were fairly narrow popular vote pluralities, not majorities. Without the Electoral College the campaign strategies of both candidates would have been different and the popular vote would have changed. Also, countries that elect their Presidents by popular vote -one thing I find strange about pro-Electoral College arguments is that it is used only for US presidential elections, if it was really such a great idea you think that other countries and the US states would have set up something similar for their own elections- almost always require majorities, with a run-off between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority in the first round. In this particular election, Trump would have been in a good position going into the runoff, especially if its true that Libertarian voters tend to be Republican leaning.

    These arguments also assume that fraud isn't rampant in American elections or that the fraud committed by both major parties always balances out.

    The Electoral College also effectively disenfranchises red state types who live in metropolitan areas in certain regions of the country.

    Incidentally, I partially disagree with the notion that the Hillary Clinton campaign was a disaster. She did get more votes, which is what campaigns are supposed to accomplish, and came very close to winning in enough states to win the Electoral College count. However, her campaign had overwhelming advantages over Trump in campaign funds and media bias. A campaign with a five to one spending advantage and the media in its favor pretty much always wins, and the Clinton campaign did get the most votes.

    Ran Prieur blogged recently that one thing Trump should do in his first hundred days is propose alot of common sense, not so partisan ideas that never get implemented because of path dependency. He mentioned getting rid of the penny and daylight savings time. Moving to electing the president by popular vote, but requiring a majority, would fall into this category. Its come up before but could actually happen this time. The interstate compact to award electoral votes to the (plurality) popular vote winner is getting enough support that we will probably lose the EC anyway.

    Your assertions are just another attempt to advantage the idiots that live in urban areas over the rest of America. Urban centers are ruled by incest, vice and stupidity. Your notion of common sense could only be offered from the febrile state of a fevered mind. If you were in charge a decade of your supervision would reduce humanity to the stone age.

  22. @Wilkey
    If the presidency were awarded to the winner of the popular vote there's no way Trump could've beaten Hillary. She would've had a huge advantage among all 18 million voters in Chicago, all 35 million voters in New York, and all 257 million voters in California.

    I'd be happy to get rid of the electoral college, but it would mean a whole host of changes related to immigration and combating voter fraud that Democrats would never agree to in a million years.

    If the presidency were awarded to the winner of the popular vote there’s no way Trump could’ve beaten Hillary.

    Wrong. If you count all the votes cast, and excluded the fraudulent votes, Trump wins handily. You have succumbed to the Leftist sirens.

    I’d be happy to get rid of the electoral college

    When their boot is stomping on your face, keep in mind that your shortsightedness ensured their ability to stomp away. Forever.

  23. @boogerbently
    Make the Dems a deal. We'll get rid of the electoral college, if they agree to proof of citizenship to vote.

    Bad deal for Republicans because so many Millennials are in thrall to the political Left.

  24. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The Donks have a deadline. They have to finish counting by December 19, ’cause that’s when the Electoral College meets. I presume they’ll finish by then. *Snort*

    Somehow, I’m suspicious of this slow counting process. Dare I say the counters are collecting names and addresses of D-voters and photographing signatures from absentee ballots to use for vote fraud two years later? They might.

  25. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…just so a dwindling minority race…

    This seems to be a lot of the trouble. America now seems to have a substantial number of people who just can’t psychologically deal with whites unless they can think of them as something lost in history, as some sort of error. It’s as if they don’t feel confident of themselves if whites are around.

    You’ve got the minority race part right, though, worldwide. What are whites, 15% of the world population? A real minority.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    This seems to be a lot of the trouble. America now seems to have a substantial number of people who just can’t psychologically deal with whites unless they can think of them as something lost in history, as some sort of error. It’s as if they don’t feel confident of themselves if whites are around.


    Interesting observation.

    Whites, I believe, are around 7 percent of world population. Now home in on the percentage at ages 0-14.
  26. @Wilkey
    If the presidency were awarded to the winner of the popular vote there's no way Trump could've beaten Hillary. She would've had a huge advantage among all 18 million voters in Chicago, all 35 million voters in New York, and all 257 million voters in California.

    I'd be happy to get rid of the electoral college, but it would mean a whole host of changes related to immigration and combating voter fraud that Democrats would never agree to in a million years.

    to me, the electoral college has always made sense…otherwise, California would always determine the winner forever…and, maybe, yikes, by some dumb people…sorry guys – thinking about those stupid college students and people who don’t bother to go to the polls 🙂 Strange thing though, as I look towards my own back nine, many middle/upper middle Californians are moving to Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, etc. So, if California fills up with more and more people seeking social services, and a strong middle/upper middle class tax base disappears, at what point will the wealthy Californians balk? Once police officers would rather work in Texas, what’s gonna happen to the wealthy areas of California?

    The electoral college, the winner-takes-all idea, works; works for all 50 states since no state can claim that another is not “American enough.” The Rust Belt states basically showed the world that no state, no California/ Pacific Coast states, nor East Coast states can negate and invalidate the people of the Rust Belt…, or the Plains, the South, their very existence; the legacy of the Rust Belt, or the fact that elites from the coasts are directly responsible for the economic collapse of the Rust Belt. Wasn’t that the idea, especially after the Civil War ( I confess, in middle school as a new arrival, I didn’t understand the Civil War) that the Electoral College would prevent states to secede? That each state had a purpose and contributed to the well being of all? That sticking together and having respect for all states/regions made it the best country in the world and all? I think I was in school during pre-indoctrination phase :)!

    I mean, California, the Pacific States could not survive without water…and having to pay for the police and firemen would be such a bitch! Not to mention, maintaining highways; having an army of some kind? hmmm? electricity? decent airports so planes don’t crash?…oh, and paying for those pesky social services that so many people want.

    • Replies: @RCB
    "otherwise, California would always determine the winner forever"

    People bring this up all the time. It's nonsense. In a popular vote, states in general become irrelevant. There are no swing states, red states, blue states - just people (potentially fraudulent ones, yes). The unbearable obsession with Florida and Ohio on election day would disappear. It's not that "California" is deciding the outcome. It's that there are a lot of people in California, so if all votes are counted equally, California as a whole must have more influence than other states. It's a natural consequence of the extremely simple, intuitive, democratic concept called "one man, one vote." The only way to prevent this is to give some people more power solely because they happen to live in a less populated state. Doing this sometimes leads to the strange outcome where we elect a president that fewer people vote for.
  27. If We Junked the Electoral College …

    …then “The United States of America” becomes “The United States of New York and California and Florida.” But that’s only part of the reason Barbara Boxer wants to get rid of the EC. It’s mostly because of the philosophy, “never let a good (or manufactured) crisis go to waste.”

    Anyway…wasn’t California going to secede from the union just a few days ago? Being that the tech industry want’s to assassinate Trump, I’d say let them go.

    http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/packetsled-ceo-resigns-over-donald-trump-assassination-comments-w450653

  28. There’s a jpeg floating around somewhere about why the Electoral College is a good idea, but this New York Times graphic today is just as good an argument for keeping what we’ve always had, for over two centuries.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    An interesting graphic. What would be a good name for "Clinton's America"? The Gulag Archipelago?

    By the way, on Tucker Carlson's new show on FOX, the background image behind the title is the red/blue electoral map by county (rather than by state), showing most of the country to be red.
  29. Is there any correlation between diversity and tardiness in counting votes?

  30. California really is a third world country. On Election Day we were given a ballot, told to fill in the circles of our choices and then walk over to the scanner to scan our ballot. Is something preventing California from doing something similar?

    • Replies: @epebble
    Yes. The process involves, at the minimum,

    1. Check the signature on the ballot envelope matches registration (very human intensive, no automation possible yet)
    2. If match, open the envelope and process ballot
    3. If mismatch, check if the signature has changed a little over time - needs a supervisor approval?
    4. Check provisional ballots for ballot accessibility - a lot of tests on residency, precinct correctness (voting in wrong precinct to be discarded), unique (single) ballot etc., Appeals thereof.

    Counting is more complicated than piling paper on a scanner. Especially when lots of absentee and provisional ballots are involved due to a dynamic and mobile electorate.

    BTW, Washington state, mostly white, has quite a slow counting process for same reasons above. I think a recent election took two months to settle.
  31. @boogerbently
    Make the Dems a deal. We'll get rid of the electoral college, if they agree to proof of citizenship to vote.

    Better deal: link voting to tax paying. Only net contributors would be allowed to vote. Everyone else is a charity case and should be treated as such (i.e., as a dependent not a head-of-household).

    • Replies: @Old fogey
    Thank you, Coemgen, for posting this. I thought I was the only person left who thought this way. And, of course, original voting laws in this country did tie voting rights to owning property and paying taxes. Little-by-little over the years more and more men and then women were given voting rights leading to the condition we have nowadays where we have non-taxpayers determining who gets to make decisions on what tax rates should be. Makes no sense to me.
    , @Mr. Anon
    A lot of people have suggested - and I think it's a good idea - move tax day from April 15th to, say, the first Monday in November.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Better deal: link voting to tax paying.
     
    Better yet, concealed-carry qualifications.
    , @Bill Jones
    Fewer than 5% of the population were eligible to vote in Washington's first election.
    , @dfordoom

    Better deal: link voting to tax paying. Only net contributors would be allowed to vote.
     
    Great idea. And while we're at it why not bring back serfdom? Teach the peasants to respect their betters. We could call it neo-feudalism.

    Everyone's ideal voting system is one which disenfranchises people whose voting habits they don't approve of.
  32. As I indicated elsewhere, one of the main results of ditching the Electoral College is that Election coverage would be a gigantic snoozefest.

    No one will be watching returns for several hours to see who won the majority in FL, or NY, or OH, or wherever because those results would be meaningless.

    Instead, what would happen is that we’d have hourly updates on the vote count, and, assuming it was close, as in this election, we’d have to wait several weeks to found out who won the election.

    Using all voters, we would be upping the recount threshold, as well, since that typically kicks in at 1/2 of 1%, which, out of a population of 120,000,000 million votes cast, would be about 600 K votes.

    Furthermore, if we ditch the EC that also raises the “fairness” issue with regard to the senate, since those 100 members are also tied to indirect governance and non-proportional representation.

    Myself, I like the current system not only because I like election night but also because I prefer indirect democracy. It’s ironic that as late as the weekend before Election Day it was thought that the “populist” (read: panderer to mob rule) Trump might actually get “more votes”, but that Hillary would nevertheless stem the White Tide by winning the Electoral College.

    I ask anyone who wants to ditch the EC to reconsider. Using a simple popular vote in a nation of 320 million is an invitation to disaster, in terms of time, length of the election process, opportunities for fraud, recounts, and “discovered” votes, non-representation for vast swathes of the country, and an invitation for splintering.

  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “California would deign to inform the country who had been elected President by national popular vote by, at the latest, Thanksgiving.”

    Even worse, its been shown that a handfull of major cities- 6-8 like NYC, LA, etc, would essentially pick the next pres. No doubt the Dems would like this, as urban dwellers tend to be liberal- goes with all the minorities, the lack of white families, etc.

  34. @Coemgen
    Better deal: link voting to tax paying. Only net contributors would be allowed to vote. Everyone else is a charity case and should be treated as such (i.e., as a dependent not a head-of-household).

    Thank you, Coemgen, for posting this. I thought I was the only person left who thought this way. And, of course, original voting laws in this country did tie voting rights to owning property and paying taxes. Little-by-little over the years more and more men and then women were given voting rights leading to the condition we have nowadays where we have non-taxpayers determining who gets to make decisions on what tax rates should be. Makes no sense to me.

  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @boogerbently
    How many illegals voted ?
    How many dead people ?
    How many "multiple time voters" ?

    “How many dead people ?”

    You know, it’s truly an incredible phenomena. You have these elderly whites who solidly vote Republican passing away each year, then they miraculously come back to life a few years later and vote solidly for Democrats. And their time under the earth was not time wasted; Many arise knowing how to fluently read ballots written in Spanish.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    "Election Day Resurrection" sounds like a good zombie flick.
  36. @Anonymous
    "How many dead people ?"

    You know, it's truly an incredible phenomena. You have these elderly whites who solidly vote Republican passing away each year, then they miraculously come back to life a few years later and vote solidly for Democrats. And their time under the earth was not time wasted; Many arise knowing how to fluently read ballots written in Spanish.

    “Election Day Resurrection” sounds like a good zombie flick.

    • Replies: @Old fogey
    And it is not just "dead people" voting. For example, I tried to show my passport when asked my name and address. The woman at the desk refused to look at it, saying that in the state of NY there was no law mandating proof of citizenship or any other identification at the time of voting. I realized then that I could easily have voted in the name of my daughter-in-law (since I know her address) or just about anyone else whose name and address I know in the area. In fact, when my son went to vote he was told that my husband, whose name is next to his in the book, had already voted. But my husband chose not to vote. I wonder who voted using my husband's name, but of course there is no way of ever finding that out. . .
  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    He really did get smacked in the popular vote, now the 6th time in seven elections that the coalition of the ascendant has won.

    Lucky, small-handed bastard! The illegitimacy will follow him like it did Bush until 2004.

    “He really did get smacked in the popular vote..”

    Only if you count the rampant cheating as legitimate. Hillary had a colossal wind in her sails from a constant 1-sided media barrage of distortion against Trump and his supporters, rigging primaries, disrupting Trump rallies, the schools and entertainment industry pushing an anti-Trump message, busing in voters, multiple voters, illegal voters, etc.

    He won, but all of that cheating had to have an effect on their numbers. How much we don’t know, although the difference in popular vote between the two even with all the cheating in her favor was quite small, which suggests that in a fair fight he’d have easily won. I don’t think we can fairly call it as a Hillary win of the popular vote. Certainly if Trump had cheated like that, they wouldn’t call his numbers legitimate.

  38. @eD
    Trump's tweet on the Electoral College, covered on this site in an earlier post, actually restates the argument Nate Silver made in the issue. I doubt Trump reads 538, but who knows?

    Silver addressed why the recent instances where the popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College (2016, 2000, and arguably 1960) has not been that big a deal. He pointed out that these were fairly narrow popular vote pluralities, not majorities. Without the Electoral College the campaign strategies of both candidates would have been different and the popular vote would have changed. Also, countries that elect their Presidents by popular vote -one thing I find strange about pro-Electoral College arguments is that it is used only for US presidential elections, if it was really such a great idea you think that other countries and the US states would have set up something similar for their own elections- almost always require majorities, with a run-off between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority in the first round. In this particular election, Trump would have been in a good position going into the runoff, especially if its true that Libertarian voters tend to be Republican leaning.

    These arguments also assume that fraud isn't rampant in American elections or that the fraud committed by both major parties always balances out.

    The Electoral College also effectively disenfranchises red state types who live in metropolitan areas in certain regions of the country.

    Incidentally, I partially disagree with the notion that the Hillary Clinton campaign was a disaster. She did get more votes, which is what campaigns are supposed to accomplish, and came very close to winning in enough states to win the Electoral College count. However, her campaign had overwhelming advantages over Trump in campaign funds and media bias. A campaign with a five to one spending advantage and the media in its favor pretty much always wins, and the Clinton campaign did get the most votes.

    Ran Prieur blogged recently that one thing Trump should do in his first hundred days is propose alot of common sense, not so partisan ideas that never get implemented because of path dependency. He mentioned getting rid of the penny and daylight savings time. Moving to electing the president by popular vote, but requiring a majority, would fall into this category. Its come up before but could actually happen this time. The interstate compact to award electoral votes to the (plurality) popular vote winner is getting enough support that we will probably lose the EC anyway.

    If we get rid of the penny how are we supposed to pay for a soda that costs $1.01.
    Of what if something cost $1.01 and you have a $20, you’re gonna Want to pay $20.01 so you get $19 back cleanly.
    There is a point to the penny, it isn’t pointless. Just because you throw yours out, or that it’s worth less than it costs to make, doesn’t mean that it isn’t valuable. Stop living in your own bubble, some people don’t have credit cards, or like paying in cash for various reasons.
    There is no pressing reason to get rid of the penny.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    If we get rid of the penny how are we supposed to pay for a soda that costs $1.01.

     

    We did it in Australia. It causes no problems at all. If your total bill is $48.27 you pay $48.25. If your total bill is $48.28 you pay $48.30. So you either lose a cent or two or you win a cent or two. Who cares? Nobody in Australia does.

    If you pay by credit card and your bill is $48.27 your credit card gets billed from $48.27.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    We can manage like people in 1910 did when a penny was worth a modern quarter.
  39. @Anonymous
    The bottom line is the Republicans can't win without this arcane 18th century mess of a regulation. They've only won ONE election fair and square in the last quarter century.

    Whitey ain't gonna change what benefits whitey; he never has!

    We are about to spend 1 trillion of money we don't have on "infrastructure" AND cut federal taxes dramatically, just so a dwindling minority race can feel a little good about themselves while this declining place just declines further . Go figure!

    Bring on the decline we have savings, you dont. You’re going to get bailed out by us, but I wish we didn’t have to. I hope president trump raises interest rates and ruins your personal economy.

  40. California would deign to inform the country who had been elected President by national popular vote by, at the latest, Thanksgiving.

    Get rid of the Electoral College? What a great incentive for the permanently leftist state of California to engage in massive hacking of computerized voting machines, to massively cheat this way thus throwing the election to the Democrat candidate.
    Think of California as one giant Philadelphia and Newark New Jersey.
    The genius of the Electoral College is that it is a series separate state by state elections. Fire walled off from each other so cheating has to be done on a state by state basis. Good example was mayor Richard Daley’s mass cheating in the Chicago vote, having it come in late and last, thus making sure JFK won Illinois and its electoral votes.

    Great that California is coming in so late. It reduces the argument for abolishing the Electoral College. I suspect California corrupto-crats are busy cheating, jacking up Hillary’s popular vote totals in the effort to de-legitimize DJ Trump’s victory.

  41. @Lagertha
    to me, the electoral college has always made sense...otherwise, California would always determine the winner forever...and, maybe, yikes, by some dumb people...sorry guys - thinking about those stupid college students and people who don't bother to go to the polls :) Strange thing though, as I look towards my own back nine, many middle/upper middle Californians are moving to Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, etc. So, if California fills up with more and more people seeking social services, and a strong middle/upper middle class tax base disappears, at what point will the wealthy Californians balk? Once police officers would rather work in Texas, what's gonna happen to the wealthy areas of California?

    The electoral college, the winner-takes-all idea, works; works for all 50 states since no state can claim that another is not "American enough." The Rust Belt states basically showed the world that no state, no California/ Pacific Coast states, nor East Coast states can negate and invalidate the people of the Rust Belt..., or the Plains, the South, their very existence; the legacy of the Rust Belt, or the fact that elites from the coasts are directly responsible for the economic collapse of the Rust Belt. Wasn't that the idea, especially after the Civil War ( I confess, in middle school as a new arrival, I didn't understand the Civil War) that the Electoral College would prevent states to secede? That each state had a purpose and contributed to the well being of all? That sticking together and having respect for all states/regions made it the best country in the world and all? I think I was in school during pre-indoctrination phase :)!

    I mean, California, the Pacific States could not survive without water...and having to pay for the police and firemen would be such a bitch! Not to mention, maintaining highways; having an army of some kind? hmmm? electricity? decent airports so planes don't crash?...oh, and paying for those pesky social services that so many people want.

    “otherwise, California would always determine the winner forever”

    People bring this up all the time. It’s nonsense. In a popular vote, states in general become irrelevant. There are no swing states, red states, blue states – just people (potentially fraudulent ones, yes). The unbearable obsession with Florida and Ohio on election day would disappear. It’s not that “California” is deciding the outcome. It’s that there are a lot of people in California, so if all votes are counted equally, California as a whole must have more influence than other states. It’s a natural consequence of the extremely simple, intuitive, democratic concept called “one man, one vote.” The only way to prevent this is to give some people more power solely because they happen to live in a less populated state. Doing this sometimes leads to the strange outcome where we elect a president that fewer people vote for.

    • Replies: @TheJester
    We live in a federation of semi-sovereign states. That's why we call it the Federal Government, right? The U.S. Constitution lists the limited powers possessed by the Federal Government. Those powers not expressly given to the Federal Government are reserved to the states.

    Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
     
    It appears that the liberal left (or whatever you want to call them) does not want to live in a Constitutional Republic consisting of a federation of states. They would rather change the rules such that a few megacities with large populations can rule over a large landmass of deplorable peasants much like the aristocrats of medieval Europe.

    The left should keep in mind that the French Revolution has been described as a revolt of the countryside against the cities ... the peasants against the aristocrats. It can happen again.

    By the way, as a constitutional principle, "one man ... one vote" only applies to the House of Representatives.

    , @Hibernian
    The politicians in places where people are highly concentrated would, with the aid of vote fraud, choose the President.
    , @Lagertha
    It's not nonsense: don't even try to argue with me. You don't know history; you don't know the contribution of the Rust Belt to this country, so, I am annoyed that I have to educate your sorry ass. I noticed that you have only commented a few times in the past...so, you are a newbie.

    No. What you fail to understand is: the 50 states are unique as far as the zeitgeist/weather (how 'bout weather, is rainy and cold good for you?) of that state: the labor/economy/cities/youth culture/general demographics/innovation. So, no, California has no right to choose who should be the president ad infinitum. The Electoral College - do your homework - works. 'Cause no state should have power over other states. The 50 states are united but will always be bound - otherwise, find your own police force and army to save you.

    California is not the best state: it is in crisis as their vast "middle class" is re-locating to cheaper states/less expensive life. California will be the first American Banana Republic: poorer class employed to serve the LA elite and SV elite. You better build high walls on your home property....better pay a lot for surveillance.

    Plus, I am a snob and think a lot of people in California are dumb, unworldly and shallow. Sorry - I spend a lot of time there, and yeah, not the smartest people in the world...you just stepped into the realm of Steve, the smartest guy in CA or USA!

  42. @Wilkey
    If the presidency were awarded to the winner of the popular vote there's no way Trump could've beaten Hillary. She would've had a huge advantage among all 18 million voters in Chicago, all 35 million voters in New York, and all 257 million voters in California.

    I'd be happy to get rid of the electoral college, but it would mean a whole host of changes related to immigration and combating voter fraud that Democrats would never agree to in a million years.

    I’d be happy to get rid of the electoral college, but it would mean a whole host of changes related to immigration and combating voter fraud that Democrats would never agree to in a million years.

    Nah. It is an advantage for whites now, and Republicans hold executive, Congress and Senate. What changes require Dem approval now?

    Instead the Republicans must be as brutally effective as the Democrats have been to get as many new Dems who have been granted citizen or resident status by violating the spirit of the law, to have that status revoked. And to eliminate the voter fraud.

    I understand that Dems don’t like the EC but it is not that different in the scheme of things to a parliamentary system where a group of arbitrarily divided up areas vote for reps rather than a president, who then choose a prime minister (who is already chosen by the time of the election).

  43. The Electoral College was a brilliant political solution to balance geography and population and now rural and urban areas in order to keep the country together. This is the same reason that each state gets two senators, regardless of population. Without these balancing provisions, the Great Flyover and the South would eventually secede from the Union because they have no voice in national affairs.

    The population of the four largest states — California, Texas, Florida and New York — as a relative measure of the number of voters = equals 106,680,995. That exceeds the population of 35 other states (70% of the states in the Union) counting from the other end of the spectrum = 102,528,142.

    In the recent presidential election, Vermont had 3 Electors … or, one Elector for every 208,681 people in the state. By comparison, California had 55 Electors … or, one Elector for every 711,724 people in the state. Definitely not democracy since Vermont and similar states had 3.4 times greater voice in the election of the president than California based on population. Indeed, the same kind of ratios exist with respect to the number of Senators measured by population. As has often been said, the United States is a federation of states, not a democracy. If being undemocratic is a reason to do away with the Electoral College, the same can be said for doing away with the Senate.

    Another way of looking at the issue is that the Electoral College balances rural areas (and the states that contain them) against a relative few large, coastal megacities. Such was the recent presidential election as shown in maps referenced below. On the maps (especially the map that tallies election results by county), it is very easy to see that the United States is “red country” except for a few clearly recognizable “blue” urban areas and megacities.

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/

    • Replies: @TheJester
    The New York Times has an article that does a better job than I have done describing the rural/urban divide in America.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html?_r=0
  44. @boogerbently
    How many illegals voted ?
    How many dead people ?
    How many "multiple time voters" ?

    Things to do when your dead:

    1.) Become a Mormon

    2.) Vote Democrat

    3.) Become the kind of Republican that Democrats like

    ……………………………….

  45. @Coemgen
    Better deal: link voting to tax paying. Only net contributors would be allowed to vote. Everyone else is a charity case and should be treated as such (i.e., as a dependent not a head-of-household).

    A lot of people have suggested – and I think it’s a good idea – move tax day from April 15th to, say, the first Monday in November.

  46. @PiltdownMan
    There's a jpeg floating around somewhere about why the Electoral College is a good idea, but this New York Times graphic today is just as good an argument for keeping what we've always had, for over two centuries.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

    An interesting graphic. What would be a good name for “Clinton’s America”? The Gulag Archipelago?

    By the way, on Tucker Carlson’s new show on FOX, the background image behind the title is the red/blue electoral map by county (rather than by state), showing most of the country to be red.

  47. Glad to see California’s new majority dispelling our concerns about their organizational skills and competence. The existence of the electoral college depresses votes in states that are not at play for either candidate, so it’s of no real consequence when the national popular vote total is counted.

    Treating popular votes an a metric in a US presidential election is a bait-and-switch. People in states with heavy majorities for or against their candidates don’t feel compelled to vote, and do not.

  48. @Anonymous
    He really did get smacked in the popular vote, now the 6th time in seven elections that the coalition of the ascendant has won.

    Lucky, small-handed bastard! The illegitimacy will follow him like it did Bush until 2004.

    You, too, will come to love the God-Emperor Ascendant. Why so much hate, bro? Open your heart. Let the love flow in. Let’s make anonymous great again!

  49. @SPMoore8
    "Election Day Resurrection" sounds like a good zombie flick.

    And it is not just “dead people” voting. For example, I tried to show my passport when asked my name and address. The woman at the desk refused to look at it, saying that in the state of NY there was no law mandating proof of citizenship or any other identification at the time of voting. I realized then that I could easily have voted in the name of my daughter-in-law (since I know her address) or just about anyone else whose name and address I know in the area. In fact, when my son went to vote he was told that my husband, whose name is next to his in the book, had already voted. But my husband chose not to vote. I wonder who voted using my husband’s name, but of course there is no way of ever finding that out. . .

    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @No_0ne
    Perhaps you missed the Project Veritas video where James O'Keefe demonstrated how easy it is to vote fraudulently?

    During Eric Holder's tenure as Attorney General, O'Keefe showed up at a polling place in Holder's district, told them his name was Eric Holder, and gave the correct address (redacted from the hidden-camera video). He repeatedly asked "Are you sure I don't need ID?" (or questions to that effect), and was reassured that he didn't.

    He was offered Holder's ballot, but made some excuse, and said that he'd be right back.

    http://projectveritas.com/u-s-ag-eric-holders-ballot-offered-to-total-stranger/
  50. @Anonymous
    The bottom line is the Republicans can't win without this arcane 18th century mess of a regulation. They've only won ONE election fair and square in the last quarter century.

    Whitey ain't gonna change what benefits whitey; he never has!

    We are about to spend 1 trillion of money we don't have on "infrastructure" AND cut federal taxes dramatically, just so a dwindling minority race can feel a little good about themselves while this declining place just declines further . Go figure!

    The bottom line is the Republicans can’t win without this arcane 18th century mess of a regulation. They’ve only won ONE election fair and square in the last quarter century.

    Reminder: from 1948 to 2004, the Democrats won exactly two majorities in the popular vote – 1964 and 1976, while the Republicans got majorities in 1952, 1956, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2004.

    Reminder: No Clinton has ever won a majority of the popular vote.

  51. @eD
    Trump's tweet on the Electoral College, covered on this site in an earlier post, actually restates the argument Nate Silver made in the issue. I doubt Trump reads 538, but who knows?

    Silver addressed why the recent instances where the popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College (2016, 2000, and arguably 1960) has not been that big a deal. He pointed out that these were fairly narrow popular vote pluralities, not majorities. Without the Electoral College the campaign strategies of both candidates would have been different and the popular vote would have changed. Also, countries that elect their Presidents by popular vote -one thing I find strange about pro-Electoral College arguments is that it is used only for US presidential elections, if it was really such a great idea you think that other countries and the US states would have set up something similar for their own elections- almost always require majorities, with a run-off between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority in the first round. In this particular election, Trump would have been in a good position going into the runoff, especially if its true that Libertarian voters tend to be Republican leaning.

    These arguments also assume that fraud isn't rampant in American elections or that the fraud committed by both major parties always balances out.

    The Electoral College also effectively disenfranchises red state types who live in metropolitan areas in certain regions of the country.

    Incidentally, I partially disagree with the notion that the Hillary Clinton campaign was a disaster. She did get more votes, which is what campaigns are supposed to accomplish, and came very close to winning in enough states to win the Electoral College count. However, her campaign had overwhelming advantages over Trump in campaign funds and media bias. A campaign with a five to one spending advantage and the media in its favor pretty much always wins, and the Clinton campaign did get the most votes.

    Ran Prieur blogged recently that one thing Trump should do in his first hundred days is propose alot of common sense, not so partisan ideas that never get implemented because of path dependency. He mentioned getting rid of the penny and daylight savings time. Moving to electing the president by popular vote, but requiring a majority, would fall into this category. Its come up before but could actually happen this time. The interstate compact to award electoral votes to the (plurality) popular vote winner is getting enough support that we will probably lose the EC anyway.

    The interstate compact to award electoral votes to the (plurality) popular vote winner is getting enough support that we will probably lose the EC anyway.

    It’s most likely that this compact will be declared unconstitutional if it is ever attempted to be implemented. States cannot legally bind their electors based on public sentiment outside their state borders. There is no instance of a state doing anything but appointing electors based on state popular vote or indirect state popular vote via a vote of their democratically elected legislature.

    http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview

    Its is just a scheme by the Democratic states to magnify their political power (which is already magnified by their huge numbers of non-citizen residents increasing their electoral vote power), as is obvious from which states have adopted it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

  52. If we junked the electoral college, the nation would turn into one big Chicago. The south side of Chicago is larger in size and population than the rest of Chicago. If you have control of the South Side, like the Daley family does, you don’t care about about the rest of the city.
    On the national level, you would campaign in New York, Texas, California, and Flordia. Ohio would not be a battleground state, for no one would care about Ohio.
    The electoral college is a work of genius.

  53. @Anonymous
    He really did get smacked in the popular vote, now the 6th time in seven elections that the coalition of the ascendant has won.

    Lucky, small-handed bastard! The illegitimacy will follow him like it did Bush until 2004.

    Only because of all the illegal aliens voting in California. All you had to do was go to a polling place in a heavily Hispanic area to see all the provisional ballots being cast.

  54. @415 reasons
    California has a quasi-third world government to match its quasi-third world population.

    California has a quasi-third world government to match its quasi-third world population.

    Absolutely.

    I wonder what California’s GENI coefficient is.

    SJW’s want to know.

    • Replies: @415 reasons
    47.1%, the same as the Dominican Republic

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
  55. @boogerbently
    Make the Dems a deal. We'll get rid of the electoral college, if they agree to proof of citizenship to vote.

    I think I know which half of that deal will be enforced, and which half won’t.

  56. @Anonymous
    The bottom line is the Republicans can't win without this arcane 18th century mess of a regulation. They've only won ONE election fair and square in the last quarter century.

    Whitey ain't gonna change what benefits whitey; he never has!

    We are about to spend 1 trillion of money we don't have on "infrastructure" AND cut federal taxes dramatically, just so a dwindling minority race can feel a little good about themselves while this declining place just declines further . Go figure!

    We are about to spend 1 trillion of money we don’t have on “infrastructure” AND cut federal taxes dramatically, just so a dwindling minority race can feel a little good about themselves

    Now you’re just being anti-semitic.

  57. @Anonymous
    The bottom line is the Republicans can't win without this arcane 18th century mess of a regulation. They've only won ONE election fair and square in the last quarter century.

    Whitey ain't gonna change what benefits whitey; he never has!

    We are about to spend 1 trillion of money we don't have on "infrastructure" AND cut federal taxes dramatically, just so a dwindling minority race can feel a little good about themselves while this declining place just declines further . Go figure!

    Were you opposed to the trillion dollar infrastructure bill passed in 2009?

    Considering the legislative dominance of the GOP not just at the federal but also the state and local levels, that “dwindling minority” is punching above it’s weight.

  58. @Ed
    California really is a third world country. On Election Day we were given a ballot, told to fill in the circles of our choices and then walk over to the scanner to scan our ballot. Is something preventing California from doing something similar?

    Yes. The process involves, at the minimum,

    1. Check the signature on the ballot envelope matches registration (very human intensive, no automation possible yet)
    2. If match, open the envelope and process ballot
    3. If mismatch, check if the signature has changed a little over time – needs a supervisor approval?
    4. Check provisional ballots for ballot accessibility – a lot of tests on residency, precinct correctness (voting in wrong precinct to be discarded), unique (single) ballot etc., Appeals thereof.

    Counting is more complicated than piling paper on a scanner. Especially when lots of absentee and provisional ballots are involved due to a dynamic and mobile electorate.

    BTW, Washington state, mostly white, has quite a slow counting process for same reasons above. I think a recent election took two months to settle.

  59. @Anonymous
    He really did get smacked in the popular vote, now the 6th time in seven elections that the coalition of the ascendant has won.

    Lucky, small-handed bastard! The illegitimacy will follow him like it did Bush until 2004.

    Last I heard, 3 million of Hillary’s vote came from illegals.

  60. @RCB
    "otherwise, California would always determine the winner forever"

    People bring this up all the time. It's nonsense. In a popular vote, states in general become irrelevant. There are no swing states, red states, blue states - just people (potentially fraudulent ones, yes). The unbearable obsession with Florida and Ohio on election day would disappear. It's not that "California" is deciding the outcome. It's that there are a lot of people in California, so if all votes are counted equally, California as a whole must have more influence than other states. It's a natural consequence of the extremely simple, intuitive, democratic concept called "one man, one vote." The only way to prevent this is to give some people more power solely because they happen to live in a less populated state. Doing this sometimes leads to the strange outcome where we elect a president that fewer people vote for.

    We live in a federation of semi-sovereign states. That’s why we call it the Federal Government, right? The U.S. Constitution lists the limited powers possessed by the Federal Government. Those powers not expressly given to the Federal Government are reserved to the states.

    Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    It appears that the liberal left (or whatever you want to call them) does not want to live in a Constitutional Republic consisting of a federation of states. They would rather change the rules such that a few megacities with large populations can rule over a large landmass of deplorable peasants much like the aristocrats of medieval Europe.

    The left should keep in mind that the French Revolution has been described as a revolt of the countryside against the cities … the peasants against the aristocrats. It can happen again.

    By the way, as a constitutional principle, “one man … one vote” only applies to the House of Representatives.

  61. @TheJester
    The Electoral College was a brilliant political solution to balance geography and population and now rural and urban areas in order to keep the country together. This is the same reason that each state gets two senators, regardless of population. Without these balancing provisions, the Great Flyover and the South would eventually secede from the Union because they have no voice in national affairs.

    The population of the four largest states -- California, Texas, Florida and New York -- as a relative measure of the number of voters = equals 106,680,995. That exceeds the population of 35 other states (70% of the states in the Union) counting from the other end of the spectrum = 102,528,142.

    In the recent presidential election, Vermont had 3 Electors ... or, one Elector for every 208,681 people in the state. By comparison, California had 55 Electors ... or, one Elector for every 711,724 people in the state. Definitely not democracy since Vermont and similar states had 3.4 times greater voice in the election of the president than California based on population. Indeed, the same kind of ratios exist with respect to the number of Senators measured by population. As has often been said, the United States is a federation of states, not a democracy. If being undemocratic is a reason to do away with the Electoral College, the same can be said for doing away with the Senate.

    Another way of looking at the issue is that the Electoral College balances rural areas (and the states that contain them) against a relative few large, coastal megacities. Such was the recent presidential election as shown in maps referenced below. On the maps (especially the map that tallies election results by county), it is very easy to see that the United States is "red country" except for a few clearly recognizable "blue" urban areas and megacities.

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/

    The New York Times has an article that does a better job than I have done describing the rural/urban divide in America.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html?_r=0

  62. @anonymous
    "...just so a dwindling minority race...

    This seems to be a lot of the trouble. America now seems to have a substantial number of people who just can't psychologically deal with whites unless they can think of them as something lost in history, as some sort of error. It's as if they don't feel confident of themselves if whites are around.

    You've got the minority race part right, though, worldwide. What are whites, 15% of the world population? A real minority.

    This seems to be a lot of the trouble. America now seems to have a substantial number of people who just can’t psychologically deal with whites unless they can think of them as something lost in history, as some sort of error. It’s as if they don’t feel confident of themselves if whites are around.

    Interesting observation.

    Whites, I believe, are around 7 percent of world population. Now home in on the percentage at ages 0-14.

  63. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @eD
    Trump's tweet on the Electoral College, covered on this site in an earlier post, actually restates the argument Nate Silver made in the issue. I doubt Trump reads 538, but who knows?

    Silver addressed why the recent instances where the popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College (2016, 2000, and arguably 1960) has not been that big a deal. He pointed out that these were fairly narrow popular vote pluralities, not majorities. Without the Electoral College the campaign strategies of both candidates would have been different and the popular vote would have changed. Also, countries that elect their Presidents by popular vote -one thing I find strange about pro-Electoral College arguments is that it is used only for US presidential elections, if it was really such a great idea you think that other countries and the US states would have set up something similar for their own elections- almost always require majorities, with a run-off between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority in the first round. In this particular election, Trump would have been in a good position going into the runoff, especially if its true that Libertarian voters tend to be Republican leaning.

    These arguments also assume that fraud isn't rampant in American elections or that the fraud committed by both major parties always balances out.

    The Electoral College also effectively disenfranchises red state types who live in metropolitan areas in certain regions of the country.

    Incidentally, I partially disagree with the notion that the Hillary Clinton campaign was a disaster. She did get more votes, which is what campaigns are supposed to accomplish, and came very close to winning in enough states to win the Electoral College count. However, her campaign had overwhelming advantages over Trump in campaign funds and media bias. A campaign with a five to one spending advantage and the media in its favor pretty much always wins, and the Clinton campaign did get the most votes.

    Ran Prieur blogged recently that one thing Trump should do in his first hundred days is propose alot of common sense, not so partisan ideas that never get implemented because of path dependency. He mentioned getting rid of the penny and daylight savings time. Moving to electing the president by popular vote, but requiring a majority, would fall into this category. Its come up before but could actually happen this time. The interstate compact to award electoral votes to the (plurality) popular vote winner is getting enough support that we will probably lose the EC anyway.

    “one thing I find strange about pro-Electoral College arguments is that it is used only for US presidential elections, if it was really such a great idea you think that other countries and the US states would have set up something similar for their own elections”

    Actually, they do — it’s called “parliamentary democracy.” It’s what every other country (well, democratic ones) have, not the primitive US system, which, as you point out, uses it only once, for the Electoral College.

  64. @Anonymous
    He really did get smacked in the popular vote, now the 6th time in seven elections that the coalition of the ascendant has won.

    Lucky, small-handed bastard! The illegitimacy will follow him like it did Bush until 2004.

    The framing of your reply attests to you being too dim to comprehend arithmetic.

    That’s OK. There’s probably a job for you in propaganda, social work, or Studies Studies studies.

    Or “activism.”

  65. @Ivy
    Our Founding Fathers get more impressive with each current media discussion of issues.

    They were not urban-hive men.

    They knew what population centers wrought politically, socially, and morally.

  66. @Anonymous
    The donk popular vote is stuffed to the gills with fraud. Various and sundry types of fraud. John Fund's book lays it out and it's not pretty!

    Plus there was the recent atrocity where Jerry Brown gave the illegals driver licenses.

    After Obama's outrageous interview in the week before the election where he encouraged illegals to vote the question should be: How many illegals in California who tried to vote were actually denied? Zero?

    Democrat pop vote total is padded with 2 million rotten votes minimum. Ask the guy from the O'Keefe videos (after a couple shots of tequila). The truth is plain ugly.

    It’s just one more step on the Yellow Brick Road to the Emerald City where the poll (voting in the classical sense, with all its structures and restructions) is converted into polling in the age of cell phones.

    It’s not accidental that the party is called Demos-crats. They truly are a globo-elite setting up mob rule that can be guided to their own ends.

    They have sought to implement this over the past 100 years of specific and centralized mass/automated communication. There is no sense to it. It’s what they do, like cancer cells or Ebola viruses.

    Only hope I have ever seen, back to the 1980s, is fragmenting centralized control and use of media. A far more (small-r) republican endeavor by nature.

  67. Two factors seem to be ignored:

    1- Assuming only the popular vote counts, what happens if no candidate receives a majority of the popular vote? Would there be a runoff election, or the candidate receiving the plurality, or would it be decided by the House of Representatives? These are thorny constitutional issues to be resolved.

    2-It is meaningless to assume that if the election were decided by popular vote, the candidate with the most votes would have won. If it winner was decided by popular vote, both the campaigns and the voting would be different.

    For example, in the last presidential election, both major parties realized that California would be majority Democratic. Therefore neither spent much on campaigning in that state; some voters didn’t bother to vote because their voting was irrelevant. On the other hand, if the president were elected by popular vote, both parties would have invested heavily in vote rich California, and more Californians would have voted.

  68. @Anonymous
    He really did get smacked in the popular vote, now the 6th time in seven elections that the coalition of the ascendant has won.

    Lucky, small-handed bastard! The illegitimacy will follow him like it did Bush until 2004.

    I guess you agree that he will do better in 2020 then, and he won’t even need a fake attack on NY to help him.

  69. @Coemgen
    Better deal: link voting to tax paying. Only net contributors would be allowed to vote. Everyone else is a charity case and should be treated as such (i.e., as a dependent not a head-of-household).

    Better deal: link voting to tax paying.

    Better yet, concealed-carry qualifications.

  70. @Coemgen
    Better deal: link voting to tax paying. Only net contributors would be allowed to vote. Everyone else is a charity case and should be treated as such (i.e., as a dependent not a head-of-household).

    Fewer than 5% of the population were eligible to vote in Washington’s first election.

  71. California would deign to inform the country who had been elected President by national popular vote by, at the latest, Thanksgiving.

    California could allow Mexican citizens to vote in presidential elections. Both non-citizen voting and different ballots for different voters (e.g., women voted for president but not governor nor mayor in Illinois in 1916; they got a ballot different from their husbands’) have precedent.

    The voters don’t even have to be present in California to vote. So that 2.5m margin could easily grow to 25m, through Internet voting from Mexican libraries. (Does Mexico have libraries?)

    In fact, New Mexico could do it as well. 25 million D votes in Santa Fe!

    Nothing in the US Constitution prevents this. But the Electoral College prevents it from mattering.

  72. @Joe Schmoe

    California has a quasi-third world government to match its quasi-third world population.
     
    Absolutely.

    I wonder what California's GENI coefficient is.

    SJW's want to know.
  73. The British currently have a government that received 36.9% of the popular vote. 63.1% of the electors didn’t want the Tories. They don’t seem inclined to change their electoral system. They currently have a prime minister who wasn’t even elected and apparently they’re fine with that.

    France has a president who got 28.6% in the first round. So 71.4% of the French electorate would have preferred someone else as president.

    Every electoral system is flawed.

  74. @boogerbently
    How many illegals voted ?
    How many dead people ?
    How many "multiple time voters" ?

    Many many…and that’s just in CA…

  75. @Coemgen
    Better deal: link voting to tax paying. Only net contributors would be allowed to vote. Everyone else is a charity case and should be treated as such (i.e., as a dependent not a head-of-household).

    Better deal: link voting to tax paying. Only net contributors would be allowed to vote.

    Great idea. And while we’re at it why not bring back serfdom? Teach the peasants to respect their betters. We could call it neo-feudalism.

    Everyone’s ideal voting system is one which disenfranchises people whose voting habits they don’t approve of.

  76. @Kyle
    If we get rid of the penny how are we supposed to pay for a soda that costs $1.01.
    Of what if something cost $1.01 and you have a $20, you're gonna Want to pay $20.01 so you get $19 back cleanly.
    There is a point to the penny, it isn't pointless. Just because you throw yours out, or that it's worth less than it costs to make, doesn't mean that it isn't valuable. Stop living in your own bubble, some people don't have credit cards, or like paying in cash for various reasons.
    There is no pressing reason to get rid of the penny.

    If we get rid of the penny how are we supposed to pay for a soda that costs $1.01.

    We did it in Australia. It causes no problems at all. If your total bill is $48.27 you pay $48.25. If your total bill is $48.28 you pay $48.30. So you either lose a cent or two or you win a cent or two. Who cares? Nobody in Australia does.

    If you pay by credit card and your bill is $48.27 your credit card gets billed from $48.27.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Same thing in Canada.
  77. @RCB
    "otherwise, California would always determine the winner forever"

    People bring this up all the time. It's nonsense. In a popular vote, states in general become irrelevant. There are no swing states, red states, blue states - just people (potentially fraudulent ones, yes). The unbearable obsession with Florida and Ohio on election day would disappear. It's not that "California" is deciding the outcome. It's that there are a lot of people in California, so if all votes are counted equally, California as a whole must have more influence than other states. It's a natural consequence of the extremely simple, intuitive, democratic concept called "one man, one vote." The only way to prevent this is to give some people more power solely because they happen to live in a less populated state. Doing this sometimes leads to the strange outcome where we elect a president that fewer people vote for.

    The politicians in places where people are highly concentrated would, with the aid of vote fraud, choose the President.

  78. @Kyle
    If we get rid of the penny how are we supposed to pay for a soda that costs $1.01.
    Of what if something cost $1.01 and you have a $20, you're gonna Want to pay $20.01 so you get $19 back cleanly.
    There is a point to the penny, it isn't pointless. Just because you throw yours out, or that it's worth less than it costs to make, doesn't mean that it isn't valuable. Stop living in your own bubble, some people don't have credit cards, or like paying in cash for various reasons.
    There is no pressing reason to get rid of the penny.

    We can manage like people in 1910 did when a penny was worth a modern quarter.

  79. @Anonymous
    He really did get smacked in the popular vote, now the 6th time in seven elections that the coalition of the ascendant has won.

    Lucky, small-handed bastard! The illegitimacy will follow him like it did Bush until 2004.

    Take out the illegal votes they have counted so far and Trump take popular vote by 2 million. The dems screwed up ,they had better utilize their illegal vote teams more strategically.
    But as they found out in NC there’s only so much a guy with a pencil is going to do for $35.

  80. @RCB
    "otherwise, California would always determine the winner forever"

    People bring this up all the time. It's nonsense. In a popular vote, states in general become irrelevant. There are no swing states, red states, blue states - just people (potentially fraudulent ones, yes). The unbearable obsession with Florida and Ohio on election day would disappear. It's not that "California" is deciding the outcome. It's that there are a lot of people in California, so if all votes are counted equally, California as a whole must have more influence than other states. It's a natural consequence of the extremely simple, intuitive, democratic concept called "one man, one vote." The only way to prevent this is to give some people more power solely because they happen to live in a less populated state. Doing this sometimes leads to the strange outcome where we elect a president that fewer people vote for.

    It’s not nonsense: don’t even try to argue with me. You don’t know history; you don’t know the contribution of the Rust Belt to this country, so, I am annoyed that I have to educate your sorry ass. I noticed that you have only commented a few times in the past…so, you are a newbie.

    No. What you fail to understand is: the 50 states are unique as far as the zeitgeist/weather (how ’bout weather, is rainy and cold good for you?) of that state: the labor/economy/cities/youth culture/general demographics/innovation. So, no, California has no right to choose who should be the president ad infinitum. The Electoral College – do your homework – works. ‘Cause no state should have power over other states. The 50 states are united but will always be bound – otherwise, find your own police force and army to save you.

    California is not the best state: it is in crisis as their vast “middle class” is re-locating to cheaper states/less expensive life. California will be the first American Banana Republic: poorer class employed to serve the LA elite and SV elite. You better build high walls on your home property….better pay a lot for surveillance.

    Plus, I am a snob and think a lot of people in California are dumb, unworldly and shallow. Sorry – I spend a lot of time there, and yeah, not the smartest people in the world…you just stepped into the realm of Steve, the smartest guy in CA or USA!

  81. @Old fogey
    And it is not just "dead people" voting. For example, I tried to show my passport when asked my name and address. The woman at the desk refused to look at it, saying that in the state of NY there was no law mandating proof of citizenship or any other identification at the time of voting. I realized then that I could easily have voted in the name of my daughter-in-law (since I know her address) or just about anyone else whose name and address I know in the area. In fact, when my son went to vote he was told that my husband, whose name is next to his in the book, had already voted. But my husband chose not to vote. I wonder who voted using my husband's name, but of course there is no way of ever finding that out. . .

    Perhaps you missed the Project Veritas video where James O’Keefe demonstrated how easy it is to vote fraudulently?

    During Eric Holder’s tenure as Attorney General, O’Keefe showed up at a polling place in Holder’s district, told them his name was Eric Holder, and gave the correct address (redacted from the hidden-camera video). He repeatedly asked “Are you sure I don’t need ID?” (or questions to that effect), and was reassured that he didn’t.

    He was offered Holder’s ballot, but made some excuse, and said that he’d be right back.

    http://projectveritas.com/u-s-ag-eric-holders-ballot-offered-to-total-stranger/

  82. @dfordoom

    If we get rid of the penny how are we supposed to pay for a soda that costs $1.01.

     

    We did it in Australia. It causes no problems at all. If your total bill is $48.27 you pay $48.25. If your total bill is $48.28 you pay $48.30. So you either lose a cent or two or you win a cent or two. Who cares? Nobody in Australia does.

    If you pay by credit card and your bill is $48.27 your credit card gets billed from $48.27.

    Same thing in Canada.

  83. Donald J. Trump, November 07, 2012:
    “The electoral college is a disaster for democracy.”

    https://web.archive.org/web/20121107182459/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS