Posted on 04/26/2018 12:30:13 PM PDT by Simon Green
Exactly. He just pulled out his lazer pointer.
Uh no. 1. It is not easier to win, or in 2016 you would have won it on the “popular” vote. 2. It would be destructive of our Federal republic of 50 states, further truncating our federalism and leading to a President whom only has a small minority of states behind them; the most populace ones. Popular vote in the executive aids the tyranny of the majority.
County by county tabulations of presidential campaign results show the person getting the electoral college majority has won more counties in the country than their opponent. That is “more of the country” than a mere “popular” vote skewed by the places with the largest local populations. Racing up such leaders by “popular vote” tends to favor the narrow interests of those smaller in number but larger in population places, and angering the regions who see their interests ignored at the center of power. It is the kind of breakup in public consensus in a republic that leads to dictators by popular consent.
Nope. Not gonna happen.
Cankles was pushing the same thing 10 years ago.
Excellent debate move. It is one thing to try and explain that a campaign based on popular vote would change everything from platform to focus on certain voters. Something that the MSM knows too well. Trump doesn’t bother to try and explain it but gets message out by changing saying that its easier to win. Smart move.
That quote is probably the most succinct way to describe Trump’s campaign. I’m surprised more people haven’t caught on to how he likes to operate.
He makes a comment like that, and the Internet blows up with leftists howling in Pavlovian response.
LOL.
Nyet.
He’s baiting them.
The EC exists for a reason and it works just fine
Be a little more disrespectful. Don’t you recognize troll bait when it’s cast?
Essentially telling flyover states he does not care about them.
I know what he’s going for here but it’s just a bad thought to voice.
Trump is not always right. He’s wrong on this The founders knew what was best for a LARGE Republic with varied and conflicting interests.
Yeah... That would be great... I can see it now, Preasadent Robert Mugabe, Papa Doc Duvalier or maybe Idi Amin... Would it be wonderful.....
If Donny-boy can't manage that, I'll call him by snarky names when I think he deserves it.
and that's exactly why Trump said it. :)
In Democrat only California, New York, Illinois, and Maryland, they don’t count votes, they manufacture them, the final tally being whatever they need to win.
The other states count votes (for the most part - Virginia will soon join California if vote fraud by illegals).
On any election night, the democrats in PST California will just wait to see how many votes are needed to flip the nationwide election totals, and then announce that number.
Better give it some thought, Donald.
I hope he is just talking about that from the perspective of campaigning and winning. The electoral vote was put there for a reason, to protect the States and less populated areas. The urban areas would rule the country if we went to the popular vote, and we know how they vote.
Without the Electoral College, the “United” States of America would not exist.
As I recall, several of the small states and the slave states would not have ratified the Constitution without it.
First he mentioned suspending due process to take guns, now a mobocracy. Just wow. He’s been hanging around gun grabber Joe Manchin too long.
Hillary will have to comment and look like a whining loser, yet again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.