“The winner take all electoral system means we’ve probably seen the last Republican President for at least 40 years. The demographics for minorities and the fleeing of RATS from thier doomed states to the Red states means the END of Republican Presidents. The only chance is to change the winner take all system to a proportional one.”
Wrong, you have it backwards. The large states are Dem states, but electoral college favors small and medium state influence. go to ‘popular vote’ and just racking up vote totals in urban areas will make the Dems win.
The GOP can pick the lock by winning back more urban and minority voters.
we dont need a majority of blacks or hispanics, but losing blacks 10 to 1 and hispanics 2 to 1 makes the rest a steep hill to climb.
“Wrong, you have it backwards. The large states are Dem states, but electoral college favors small and medium state influence. go to ‘popular vote’ and just racking up vote totals in urban areas will make the Dems win.”
Complete nonsense. I never advocated a popular vote system but that also would give Repubs a greater chance than the winner take all system. Currently Repubs get NO ELECTORAL VOTES from the largest states. They start out with a huge disadvantage in Presidential elections. In the current system if the rats win a state’s pop vote with 55:45 ratio Repubs get NOTHING, in a proportional system the RATS would get 55% of the electoral vote and the Reps would get 45%. That would be a great benefit to the Reps and would make candidates have to campaign in all 50 states rather than just the close ones. If Texas goes RAT (as is the current trend) due to hispanic influence, migration of RATS from failed blue states and probable amnesty for illegals, the Reps have NO CHANCE of winning the Presidency. The migration of blue state voters to red states and changing them to blue is a huge problem. Turning a few minority voters (how would that be done anyway) wouldnt change a thing.