JohnboyND7

That would be a substantial undertaking that I think might more appropriately left to a reasonably tech savvy older poster. I was thinking about that a bit today too though. I will see if I know anyone willing to create a database for you.

Listen Fat....you're a dog faced pony solduer.

To be fair, Biden won because literally everyone dropped out and endorsed him.

Gardner, Grassley, and Alexanser have all said let's roll. Mitch appears to have the votes. Dude has cemented his place on the GOP's Mt. Rushmore if he gets this done.

Do you proportion it per statewide vote or do you do winner take all based on house districts? If by proportion, does the dude who gets 50.01% only get half of the EC votes in the state or do they get 50%+1? If by house district, how do we decide who gets the two extra votes each state has? I think there would be some goofy stuff that goes on. I like the simple way we have it now. Win the state babyyyy.

I love reading up on libertarian candidates. One second you'll be reading and its like "yeah this guy gets it"...next thing you know they are talking about legalizing beastiality or PCP or something off the wall.

Motivation to carry out your civic duty can come from many sources!

Anyone who says they didn't vote because their vote doesn't matter are the types of people who wouldn't vote if you dropped a ballot off at their house. They either do not care or do not like either option. Nothing wrong with encouraging people to participate in elections but changing the rules in order to try enticing them to come out seems excessive.

It doesn't seem like I'm the problem here. Then again, I'm not the one threatening violence against states like...LOL Wyoming who I'm pretty sure has never bothered anyone.

1. Why don't you craft policies that appeal to these Ubermesch Wyoming voters? What's crazy is...if you appeal to Wyoming's citizens, there is a strong likelihood you'll appeal to SEVERAL other states as well! Its really cool how that works. 2. The burden of convincing people lies with the one seeking to institute a change. So far all you've offered was a generic threat of some sort of avocado toast uprising. I would say you claimed it would benefit us all because there are apparently mythical non-voters just waiting for a popular vote to be implemented...but my experience with non-voters is that it is an excuse to justify not taking the time to vote rather than the reason they don't vote. So in conclusion, you want to take voting power away from several states, you don't want to give them anything in return, you make a vague threat towards them if they don't comply, and then get mad when they don't want to go along with it?

You are right! We can amend it. Get busy leading the charge. Be the change! Convince the requisite number of states and congressmen that your idea will improve the country. Something tells me it won't go well but...you are free to try.

A field goal and a touchdown should be worth the same. 1 score is 1 score. The concept frightens you and every Nick Saban team. Very telling. Instead of looking at who wins 4 games in a best of 7 series, we should award the series to whomever has a better point/goal differential. The concept frightens you and every team who has ever won a series with a negative point differential... very telling!

Because there is a very real possibility you'd drive from the Jersey Shore to LA and not encounter a drive through a single state where the President won lol

You haven't given the small states any reason to accept your demands and I dont think there really is anything you could offer. All you have is some threat that essentially states "let us win or we'll make you let us win."

It's not supposed to be balanced lol. You are listing features, not bugs.

let's play a game where we assume the electoral college exists because of slavery. In this world we agree that it was formed in order to get slave states to agree to enter the union. Now tell me why we shouldn't have it. Slavery is gone, so its not like it is upholding America's original sin anymore. As far as I can tell, all it does now is requires politicians to craft a message that can appeal to voters throughout nearly every part of the country. Most of the swing states have substantial urban and rural populations so you get a nice cross section of the country in those places too of you afe into that sorta thing. Complaining about the E.C though isn't going to get you anywhere. Learn to play the game. It has some basic rules and they aren't hard to learn. You are probably the same type or dude who changed the rules to board games when you were younger because you didn't like losing...many kids do that...most grow out of it eventually though.

Lol its definitely true of both sides. I'm perfectly fine admitting it because at this point, when I see where it looks like the Democrat Party is going, it is not a United States but a European socialist state. I imagine that more moderate Democrats are less afraid of that, because they either A.) Believe that doesn't sound so bad, or B.) Believe they will adequately extinguish that wing of the party and maybe they are right. Meanwhile, many Dems probably look at the GOP and see some nonsense from the Handmaid's Tale or something and think "well I'd rather take just about anything else" even if it means voting for some absolute loons. Meanwhile the typical Republican laughs at that thought because its absurd.

Crazy how we couldn't win in Afghanistan

Barack Obama talked about doing the Lord's work. Was this a problematic statement? Latching onto the "Kingdom of God" statement implies you dont believe religious folks should be allowed to serve as judges or government officials.

Lol and just like that...anti-Catholic bigotry is back! I for one will welcome the Swiss Guard as liberators and am eager to see the American Vatican built. Interestingly enough, libs have been defending Joe Biden as a devout practicing Catholic for weeks on one hand while simultaneously holding out some goofy conspiracy theory bigotry that Amy Barrett is unfit for SCOTUS because she is a practicing Catholic. Pretty tight needle you are trying to thread here. "The only Catholics fit for office or the bench are the ones who don't actually believe the teachings of the Church but also if you imply Biden and Pelosi aren't real Catholics you are slandering decent people!"

I'd look more at the way libs turned Ginsberg into some sort of secular deity. T-shirts...Halloween costumes...figurines...for a lawyer. My classmates are in legit mourning right now...Videos of women crying on TV...social media tributes...etc. I'm surprised school is not cancelled tomorrow. I fully expect that they'll make resources available for those who need to talk about what happened. I totally get the goofy cult of personality that Trump has, I get it for Obama in many ways too. But for an unelected lawyer? I would be very surprised if these people could name more than one of her opinions.

Man...you really are heartbroken right now, aren't you?

The American people voted in 2018 to give an expanded Senate majority to the GOP. They have a mandate. Should also be noted that several of them mention "a new President." We knew in 2016 we'd have a new President. Here, we do not know that. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter though. Donald Trump will nominate someone this week, and the Senate will vote yes or vote no. We have a GOP president and a GOP Senate, lets roll!

Yep. They have been talking about it for years. They shot the hostage before the FBI negotiator even arrived. "We'll add to the court if you do this!" - chuck "You already said you were going to do that. Anything else?" - mitch

Nothing in the constitution about the size of the Supreme Court. FDR got rebuked by his own party who had a super majority. Pretty fun legislation to read about, his own people were rather blunt about how they felt about it.