Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

John Fante

(3,479 posts)

10. Sorry, no.

Reply to JayhawkSD (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 04:43 AM

Mar 2019

GWB winning California's electoral votes in 2004 would have been seen for what it was - a product of Bush winning the popular vote. A meaningless gesture that in no way indicates how the state voted.

I fail to see how this is worse than Trump's victory in 2016, an election in which he recieved 2.9 millon fewer votes than his opponent. The electoral college is a piece of crap that's completely undemocratic. Why should my vote count less than a rural voter's just because I choose to live in a big city?

All persons are created equal, and that should include value of their votes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

California would have cast 55 electoral votes for George W. Bush. [View all] JayhawkSD Mar 2019 OP

To be fair, had this been in place in 2000, we might be in our 20th straight year of Democrats mr_lebowski Mar 2019 #1

But W won anyway in 2004, so no difference. And it is two elections, not one manor321 Mar 2019 #2

going along with the will of the majority is now something to disparage? unblock Mar 2019 #3

I don't understand the point... Drunken Irishman Mar 2019 #4

Perhaps not. fleabiscuit Mar 2019 #5

It's not a ridiculous law. When have the Republicans lost the EC but won the popular vote? But it's pnwmom Mar 2019 #6

That is because he won the popular vote. Tiggeroshii Mar 2019 #7

And Bush wouldn't have been running in 2004 if it had been in place in 2000. NYC Liberal Mar 2019 #8

Thank you! allgood33 Mar 2019 #9

Sorry, no. John Fante Mar 2019 #10

Not a rational response in the bunch. JayhawkSD Mar 2019 #11

Except . . . DeltaLitProf Mar 2019 #12

The popular vote compact is 100% Constitutional Recursion Mar 2019 #13

I would deem the responses Codeine Mar 2019 #18

Um, isn't it the popular vote state wide? denbot Mar 2019 #14

The Popular Vote compact is an agreement among states to give their electors Recursion Mar 2019 #16

Well, if you think going along with what everyone else decides is ridiculous kcr Mar 2019 #15

nonsense jcgoldie Mar 2019 #17