Tucker showing video of the Jan 6th , that has never been shown

bob99 said:
Independents can't vote in the primaries for presidential candidates in Ohio. If I could, I would vote for Pence over Trump. Is a Rino still a conservative?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an "independent party" in Ohio or any State as I understand the term, it is never to be capitalized.. There are parties and there are other people who have "NP" next to their names which means "No Party"

A NP voter can vote in a Presidential primary by simply requesting a partisan ballot, but cannot vote in more than one primary election, by simply asking for a D or R or Green Party ballot. Or he can ask for a non partisan ballot and vote on any issue on the ballot at that time. However, by requesting a partisan ballot, as far as his voter registration is concerned he becomes affiliated with (but not a member of) the party whose ballot he requests, and then may revert to NP by requesting a NP ballot at the next primary election he votes in, (if there are ballot issues on the ballot) but he does not wish to vote in any party primary. He can switch from D or R or G or any party he voted in previously by simply requesting a DIFFERENT party's partisan ballot in the next party primary.

On an Ohio voter registration and information update form there is no question or space for a voter's party affiliation


The only people who need to file a form to change party affiliation are those people elected to office as a partisan candidate who wish to be no longer affiliated with that party and are running for an office under a different party in an upcoming primary.


Voting in a partisan primary election does not make a person a member of that political party. The only people in a county who are actually members of a political party are those people elected to the Central Committee of a Political Party. (or who are elected to the State Central Committee of a political party. ) Everyday garden variety citizens are not and cannot be members of the political parties they may vote for in party primary elections, and may switch back and forth as they please by simply requesting the ballot of any party at any primary election and are free to vote for any candidate in any general election.

You may ask. Why does everything have to be so complicated?

To get an idea of how complicated election law actually IS:

here is the list of forms and petitions having to do with election law in ohio

 
Last edited:
BlueDevil2022 said:
There is no such thing as an "independent party" in Ohio or any State as I understand the term, it is never to be capitalized.. There are parties and there are other people who have "NP" next to their names which means "No Party"

A NP voter can vote in a Presidential primary by simply requesting a partisan ballot, but cannot vote in more than one primary election, by simply asking for a D or R or Green Party ballot. Or he can ask for a non partisan ballot and vote on any issue on the ballot at that time. However, by requesting a partisan ballot, as far as his voter registration is concerned he becomes affiliated with (but not a member of) the party whose ballot he requests, and then may revert to NP by requesting a NP ballot at the next primary election he votes in, (if there are ballot issues on the ballot) but he does not wish to vote in any party primary. He can switch from D or R or G or any party he voted in previously by simply requesting a DIFFERENT party's partisan ballot in the next party primary.

On an Ohio voter registration and information update form there is no question or space for a voter's party affiliation


The only people who need to file a form to change party affiliation are those people elected to office as a partisan candidate who wish to be no longer affiliated with that party and are running for an office under a different party in an upcoming primary.


Voting in a partisan primary election does not make a person a member of that political party. The only people in a county who are actually members of a political party are those people elected to the Central Committee of a Political Party. (or who are elected to the State Central Committee of a political party. ) Everyday garden variety citizens are not and cannot be members of the political parties they may vote for in party primary elections, and may switch back and forth as they please by simply requesting the ballot of any party at any primary election and are free to vote for any candidate in any general election.

You may ask. Why does everything have to be so complicated?

To get an idea of how complicated election law actually IS:

here is the list of forms and petitions having to do with election law in ohio

Click to expand...
I don't affiliate with either political party and I capitalize Independent because I do what I want to do. Sorry you spent so much time typing a post to tell me what I already know. Are you going to tell me that there isn't a large number of voters whose only criteria to voting is to check the letter at the end of the candidates name? I see no need to register to a political party. My opinion, both parties have morphed into something I don't recognize or understand. The far left and the far right have too much control and I don't understand why.
 
lotr10 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1639755581593354240
Click to expand...
What am I looking at lotty? I would expect undercover agents to be dispersed in the crowd. It gave us another look at what was going on that day. It is a military procedure to infiltrate and garner information. I don't see the officers forcing anybody to do anything or calling for violence.
Their actions can be seen as trying to blend in and to protect themselves. How does this exonerate anyone?
 
As footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol is displayed in the background, former President Donald Trump stands while a song, “Justice for All,” is played during a campaign rally at Waco Regional Airport, Saturday, March 25, 2023, in Waco, Texas

GO MAGA!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: y2h
bob99 said:
And BlueDevil gave you examples of Republicans winning the popular vote. There is no way to prove which one of us is right. Nothing is going to change. The EC isn't going anywhere. I am simply stating my opinion. Sorry if my opinion hurts your feeling. Not really. I am still going to do me🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.

The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.

Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.

The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.

The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply again changing their state’s law.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

Math and political reality.

The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.

All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.

Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome

In 2016,

CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.

Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.
 
bob99 said:
I don't affiliate with either political party and I capitalize Independent because I do what I want to do. Sorry you spent so much time typing a post to tell me what I already know. Are you going to tell me that there isn't a large number of voters whose only criteria to voting is to check the letter at the end of the candidates name? I see no need to register to a political party. My opinion, both parties have morphed into something I don't recognize or understand. The far left and the far right have too much control and I don't understand why.
Click to expand...

You cannot register to a party name, you can only request a party ballot to vote in a party primary.

that automatically affiliates you with that party as far as your voter registration is concerned but does not make you a member of that party.

I don't post for you, I post for all users, even though I might use your post as a platform.
 
I have a fear and it comes from hearing things like elections need to be federally controlled at least when it is a President being elected. Then we have defund the police ( really reduce funding to the police) and this is being promoted by our left leaning democrat party people. Right after the reductions happen and police forces in these cities are having trouble with increased crime that is due to a shortage of police officers. I hear our Democrat President pushing for fed. funds to help with the shortages of man power. Control of elections with Fed money, control of the police departments because of Fed funding. Any time Fed money is used the Fed govt gets to have a say or control of how things are run. Look at education thanks to Fed say so schools are being told what they can even feed kids for lunch. Fed Govt control is the goal of the Democrat party. Need another example look at how welfare in run. Fed money means Fed control and rules. The power states are suppose to have and be able to control is slowly being taken away and we the people just let it happen. It is only one little thing then another and another.
 
Last edited:
ottootto said:
State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.

The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.

Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.

The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.

The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply again changing their state’s law.
Click to expand...
Did you read the Ohio bill ?

the mechanics of the process are very problematic.

 
Happier said:
As footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol is displayed in the background, former President Donald Trump stands while a song, “Justice for All,” is played during a campaign rally at Waco Regional Airport, Saturday, March 25, 2023, in Waco, Texas

GO MAGA!
Click to expand...
He trolls and you fall for it every time
 
ottootto said:
State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.

The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.

Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.

The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.

The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply again changing their state’s law.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

Math and political reality.

The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.

All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.

Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome

In 2016,

CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.

Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.
Click to expand...
It would hand control of the country to Cali, NY and Illinois...no thanks.
 
y2h said:
It would hand control of the country to Cali, NY and Illinois...no thanks.
Click to expand...
Math and political reality.

The most populous SIX states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.

All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.

Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome

In 2016,

CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.

Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.


The National Popular Vote bill would NOT abolish the Electoral College.
We would NOT vote on everything.

The bill is ONLY about presidential elections.

The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. would continue to represent us.
 
BlueDevil2022 said:
Did you read the Ohio bill ?

the mechanics of the process are very problematic.

Click to expand...
It is NOT very problematic to add the certified popular votes of all 50 states and DC.
An elementary school student with Excel could do it.

In district winner states -- Maine (changed their law in 1969) and Nebraska (changed their law in 1992) - the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote).

In states enacting the National Popular Vote bill, when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538, all of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC).

Non-enacting states would award their electors however they want. Continuing with district or statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law.

Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.

The electoral votes from all 50 states are and would be co-mingled and simply added together.

The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.

​
 
ottootto said:
It is NOT very problematic to add the certified popular votes of all 50 states and DC.
An elementary school student with Excel could do it.

In district winner states -- Maine (changed their law in 1969) and Nebraska (changed their law in 1992) - the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote).

In states enacting the National Popular Vote bill, when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538, all of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC).

Non-enacting states would award their electors however they want. Continuing with district or statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law.

Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.

The electoral votes from all 50 states are and would be co-mingled and simply added together.

The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.

​
Click to expand...

You signed up today and made your first 3 posts cut and pastes???
'
What a loser.
 
Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Iowa, Florida, and Ohio will join the politically irrelevant states. No more wildly outsized attention, power, and influence.

In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states -- Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with less than 20% of US population and 43 electoral votes -- would begin with Democrats favored to win 260 Electoral College votes and Republicans 235.-

38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states.

Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important.

The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years.

Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions.

Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.

The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.

In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined,

This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic.

When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.
 
ottootto said:
Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Iowa, Florida, and Ohio will join the politically irrelevant states. No more wildly outsized attention, power, and influence.

In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states -- Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with less than 20% of US population and 43 electoral votes -- would begin with Democrats favored to win 260 Electoral College votes and Republicans 235.-

38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states.

Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important.

The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years.

Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions.

Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.

The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.

In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined,

This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic.

When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.
Click to expand...

My bad. Your first 5 post are cut and pastes!

lmao
 
ottootto said:
Math and political reality.

The most populous SIX states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.

All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.

Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome

In 2016,

CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.

Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.


The National Popular Vote bill would NOT abolish the Electoral College.
We would NOT vote on everything.

The bill is ONLY about presidential elections.

The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. would continue to represent us.
Click to expand...
They are valued equally now. Whether you live in Wyoming or Cali you have a voice in that your electoral votes are valuable toward the 270 goal. Under a straight popular vote only the huge population states matter. Run up the score there and the voters in smaller states dont matter.
 
y2h said:
They are valued equally now. Whether you live in Wyoming or Cali you have a voice in that your electoral votes are valuable toward the 270 goal. Under a straight popular vote only the huge population states matter. Run up the score there and the voters in smaller states dont matter.
Click to expand...
States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most popular votes of ALL 50 STATES and DC

The 25 smallest states combined have had

57 Democratic electors and

58 Republican electors.

CA has 54 electors

Now, states with 3 electors range in population of less than 577,000 to almost a million.

Mathematically NOT balanced, fair, equal, or proportional.
In 2020

276,765 popular votes were cast in Wyoming (3 electors)

336,000 ish in DC (3 electors)

603,650 popular votes were cast in Montana (3 electors).

Each Republican popular vote in Alaska was worth 1.8 times as much per elector as each Republican popular vote in Montana.

More than 900,000 more votes were cast in Pennsylvania with 20 electors (6,915,283)

than Illinois with 20 electors (6,003,744).

Florida (R) with 29 electors (11,067,456) cast almost 3.5 million more votes than

New York (D) with 29 electors (7,616,861).

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

In 2016, Trump became President even though Clinton won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes.

Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes.

Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes.

A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

Each of these 21,461 voters was 329 times more important than the more than 7 million.

The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).

If the 2022 Election Were a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by 2.8 percentage points, 3 million votes.​


All voters in the biggest states do not vote for the same presidential candidate.

With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 38 smaller states.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

But, the political reality is that the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:

* Texas (62% R), 1,691,267

* New York (59% D), 1,192,436

* Georgia (58% R), 544,634

* North Carolina (56% R), 426,778

* California (55% D), 1,023,560

* Illinois (55% D), 513,342

* New Jersey (53% D), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running.

Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now.

Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 4 of them.
Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.
 
y2h said:
They are valued equally now. Whether you live in Wyoming or Cali you have a voice in that your electoral votes are valuable toward the 270 goal. Under a straight popular vote only the huge population states matter. Run up the score there and the voters in smaller states dont matter.
Click to expand...

Iowa, Florida, and Ohio will join the politically irrelevant states in 2024.
No more wildly outsized attention, power, and influence.

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

“Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with [fewer] votes to win the White House. Republicans have long said that they believe in competition. Let both parties compete for votes across the nation and stop disenfranchising voters by geography. The winner should win.” – Stuart Stevens (Romney presidential campaign top strategist)

" . . . a president should be elected by national popular vote is not radical, it is actually mainstream. . . . We can get closer to the national popular vote having greater weight in presidential elections and having a president represent all Americans in ways that don’t require amending the Constitution. These fixes will make presidential candidates run more diverse campaigns, and campaign in all cities and communities of our country. . . . That will help unify us more as a country, and would likely lead to more informed public policy. How can anyone be against that outcome?" – Matthew Dowd (Senior George W. Bush campaign strategist)

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said

"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"

“The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

Mitt Romney said at a fund-raising dinner in Boca Raton, Florida in 2012:

“All the money will be spent in 10 states, and this is one of them.”

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

12 states had 96% of the general-election campaign events (204 of 212) by the major-party presidential and vice-presidential candidates during the 2020 presidential campaign (Aug 28 to Nov 3).

All of the 212 events were in just 17 states. 33 states and DC did not have any general-election campaign events at all.

Pennsylvania got 47 general-election campaign events -- the most of any state and 22% of the total. Florida got 31 events -- 15% of the total. Together, Pennsylvania and Florida got 3/8 of the entire presidential campaign attention.

In the 2016 general election campaign

Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).

In 2016, Karl Rove advised Trump - “Look, you’re welcome to try and win [a state you can’t win], but every day you spend trying to win a state you can’t win is a day that a presidential candidate forfeits winning in a state like, in your case, Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin or Iowa.”

“You’ve got to—we had to focus on 270 and that meant that every day that we spent outside those states was a day that was wasted, unless we had either fundraising necessities or a national message that we needed to...” “Every day is vital, and we put all of our time and all of our energy and all of our resources into our battleground-state effort.”

In the 2012 general election campaign

38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states.

In the 2008 campaign, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states.

In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Issues of importance to 38+ non-battleground states have been of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:

“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager in 2016, said,

“When I took over as campaign manager in 2016, we did zero—let me repeat the number—zero national polls.”

When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.




 
ottootto said:
Iowa, Florida, and Ohio will join the politically irrelevant states in 2024.
No more wildly outsized attention, power, and influence.

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

“Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with [fewer] votes to win the White House. Republicans have long said that they believe in competition. Let both parties compete for votes across the nation and stop disenfranchising voters by geography. The winner should win.” – Stuart Stevens (Romney presidential campaign top strategist)

" . . . a president should be elected by national popular vote is not radical, it is actually mainstream. . . . We can get closer to the national popular vote having greater weight in presidential elections and having a president represent all Americans in ways that don’t require amending the Constitution. These fixes will make presidential candidates run more diverse campaigns, and campaign in all cities and communities of our country. . . . That will help unify us more as a country, and would likely lead to more informed public policy. How can anyone be against that outcome?" – Matthew Dowd (Senior George W. Bush campaign strategist)

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said

"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"

“The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

Mitt Romney said at a fund-raising dinner in Boca Raton, Florida in 2012:

“All the money will be spent in 10 states, and this is one of them.”

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

12 states had 96% of the general-election campaign events (204 of 212) by the major-party presidential and vice-presidential candidates during the 2020 presidential campaign (Aug 28 to Nov 3).

All of the 212 events were in just 17 states. 33 states and DC did not have any general-election campaign events at all.

Pennsylvania got 47 general-election campaign events -- the most of any state and 22% of the total. Florida got 31 events -- 15% of the total. Together, Pennsylvania and Florida got 3/8 of the entire presidential campaign attention.

In the 2016 general election campaign

Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).

In 2016, Karl Rove advised Trump - “Look, you’re welcome to try and win [a state you can’t win], but every day you spend trying to win a state you can’t win is a day that a presidential candidate forfeits winning in a state like, in your case, Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin or Iowa.”

“You’ve got to—we had to focus on 270 and that meant that every day that we spent outside those states was a day that was wasted, unless we had either fundraising necessities or a national message that we needed to...” “Every day is vital, and we put all of our time and all of our energy and all of our resources into our battleground-state effort.”

In the 2012 general election campaign

38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states.

In the 2008 campaign, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states.

In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Issues of importance to 38+ non-battleground states have been of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:

“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager in 2016, said,

“When I took over as campaign manager in 2016, we did zero—let me repeat the number—zero national polls.”

When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.




Click to expand...
All states are currently in play. You need to get to 270...winning (appealing) to as many states as possible is how you rack up the necessary points. A straight national vote you only need to appeal to the most populous locations.
 
y2h said:
All states are currently in play. You need to get to 270...winning (appealing) to as many states as possible is how you rack up the necessary points. A straight national vote you only need to appeal to the most populous locations.
Click to expand...
Of COURSE all states are NOT currently in play.
A Republican could REALLY win CA, NY, IL, VT, DC, HI, RI, and DE ??
And a Democrat could REALLY win AK, WY, WV, UT, MO, ND, OK, ID, SD, KY, AL, TN, LA, MS, NE?
At least 41 states and 80% of U.S. population will be politically irrelevant in 2024.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Only 9 states (and 2 congressional districts) with 109 electoral votes and less than 21% of the US population and less than 23% of total 2020 presidential votes, could be competitive and wooed in 2024.

Iowa, Florida, and Ohio will join the politically irrelevant states. No more wildly outsized attention, power, and influence.

The Electoral College would have 211 Democratic and 218 Republican predictable votes.

In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states -- Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with less than 20% of US population and 43 electoral votes -- would begin with Democrats favored to win 260 Electoral College votes and Republicans 235

Over and Over again I have shown the math and political reality that to win the most votes from ALL 50 STATES and DC to win the Electoral College a successful candidate would NOT only need to appeal to the most populous locations. They would LOSE, spectacularly if they only appealed to the most populous locations.

www.nationalpopularvote.com

41 States (with 80% of U.S. Population) will be Ignored in the 2024 Presidential Election

The 2024 presidential campaign will be concentrated in nine states (and one congressional district in Maine and Nebraska)—with a total of 109 electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. ● The Republican nominee can count on 218 electoral votes from 24 states. ● The...
www.nationalpopularvote.com www.nationalpopularvote.com
 
y2h said:
Have you checked out the trustworthiness of the Fed government lately? You think that'll be oversight everyone can agree on?
Click to expand...
Sure equal oversight. Equal scrutiny wherever the votes are counted. Apparently you don't trust some of the states now. Who do they answer to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top