4 ms·

While they would prefer Pence, their base is still enamored with Trump. The legislators are scared, and don't want to endanger their reelection until he is no l

While they would prefer Pence, their base is still enamored with Trump. The legislators are scared, and don't want to endanger their reelection until he is no longer popular.

jakeogh 10y ago
Na, he just won in a near landslide. Sure Pence could have won too, but he's nowhere as capable as Trump taking on the established false left-right MSM.
- rat87 10y ago
  What landslide he barely slid in a electoral vote disaster, despite the electoral vote being meant to be used against men like Trump
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    227 vs 306 is not close. I said near-landslide because a landlside (I think) is usually something >=370. No worries, it might still happen.
    - twright0 10y ago
      I'll also point out that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes (2%), which makes it really stretch the imagination to even call it a "near-landslide".
      - jakeogh 10y ago
        Sure, except popular vote does not matter, nor should it. If it did, CA and NY's echo boxes would run the US, and there would be no US in short order. Don't forged why the Unites States exists; taxation without representation. He could have lost FL _or_ OH and still won.
        peterclary 10y ago
        I don't understand this idea that just because somebody lives in a particular state their vote should count less than somebody in a different state. That seems evidently unfair.
        tkwj 10y ago
        The fairness is intended at the state level. How your state decides on electors is their law. It doesn't even have to poll each individual, historically state legislatures even did it themselves.
        rbanffy 10y ago
        It exists because some states are very sparsely populated while others actively suppress the votes of a large portion of its population, first by slavery, then by other methods. It's fair to increase representation of underpopulated states because their interests would be underrepresented if not (and it's a good thing because it allows large areas to be dedicated to nature). Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in place that actively punishes voter suppression. Voters per inhabitant ratio and election turnout could be used to penalize states with low engagement to ensure voter suppression does not occur.
        baddox 10y ago
        I still don't get it. Why would sparsely populated states' interests be underrepresented if every individual vote were equal? That only makes sense if you think land area or population density is a primary unit of relevance regarding political influence, which to me seems completely arbitrary.
        dllthomas 10y ago
        One sq mile, one vote!
        rbanffy 10y ago
        People who live in underpopulated states have a valid argument in that, if their votes are not weighted to compensate for the low density, their voices may end up not being heard. This weighting creates a minimum limit for representation. It, however, removes the penalty for suppressing votes because the remaining votes continue to have a fixed weight.
      - reddytowns 10y ago
        The problem with calling it close based on the popular vote, is that you have to retroactively change the rules. The MSM made the game of winning the popular vote much different than winning the electoral college, by being so biased against Trump, and he campaigned hard in the swing states. Only those people really heard what he had to say. The rest of the US was hearing information filtered by the MSM.
    - wwweston 10y ago
      Since state electoral votes are mostly awarded all-or-nothing, the electoral count can't tell you anything about how close an election was or wasn't. Looking at a number of swing states with significant numbers of electoral votes can, though. The margin of victory was just over 1% in Florida (29EV). It's less 1% in Pennsylvania (20EV) and Wisconsin (10EV). Michigan (16EV) was less than .25%. That's 75EV won by that thin a margin. Half that could have swung the election. (And yes, you can play this game the other way, but the only state Clinton won that was that closely contested was... New Hampshire, 4EV) The election was quite close. Trump's electoral victory was very thin. That's the state of affairs to be expected when the EC winner loses the popular vote.
  - anjc 10y ago
    > he barely slid in a electoral vote disaster, despite the electoral vote being meant to be used against men like Trump Did you not pay attention to the election at all?
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  About 3 million votes LESS, winning only because of which particular states he got majority in? How's that a landslide victory?

While they would prefer Pence, their base is still enamored with Trump. The legislators are scared, and don't want to endanger their reelection until he is no longer popular.

jakeogh 10y ago

Na, he just won in a near landslide. Sure Pence could have won too, but he's nowhere as capable as Trump taking on the established false left-right MSM.

rat87 10y ago
What landslide he barely slid in a electoral vote disaster, despite the electoral vote being meant to be used against men like Trump
- jakeogh 10y ago
  227 vs 306 is not close. I said near-landslide because a landlside (I think) is usually something >=370. No worries, it might still happen.
  - twright0 10y ago
    I'll also point out that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes (2%), which makes it really stretch the imagination to even call it a "near-landslide".
    - jakeogh 10y ago
      Sure, except popular vote does not matter, nor should it. If it did, CA and NY's echo boxes would run the US, and there would be no US in short order. Don't forged why the Unites States exists; taxation without representation. He could have lost FL _or_ OH and still won.
      - peterclary 10y ago
        I don't understand this idea that just because somebody lives in a particular state their vote should count less than somebody in a different state. That seems evidently unfair.
        tkwj 10y ago
        The fairness is intended at the state level. How your state decides on electors is their law. It doesn't even have to poll each individual, historically state legislatures even did it themselves.
        rbanffy 10y ago
        It exists because some states are very sparsely populated while others actively suppress the votes of a large portion of its population, first by slavery, then by other methods. It's fair to increase representation of underpopulated states because their interests would be underrepresented if not (and it's a good thing because it allows large areas to be dedicated to nature). Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in place that actively punishes voter suppression. Voters per inhabitant ratio and election turnout could be used to penalize states with low engagement to ensure voter suppression does not occur.
        baddox 10y ago
        I still don't get it. Why would sparsely populated states' interests be underrepresented if every individual vote were equal? That only makes sense if you think land area or population density is a primary unit of relevance regarding political influence, which to me seems completely arbitrary.
        dllthomas 10y ago
        One sq mile, one vote!
        rbanffy 10y ago
        People who live in underpopulated states have a valid argument in that, if their votes are not weighted to compensate for the low density, their voices may end up not being heard. This weighting creates a minimum limit for representation. It, however, removes the penalty for suppressing votes because the remaining votes continue to have a fixed weight.
    - reddytowns 10y ago
      The problem with calling it close based on the popular vote, is that you have to retroactively change the rules. The MSM made the game of winning the popular vote much different than winning the electoral college, by being so biased against Trump, and he campaigned hard in the swing states. Only those people really heard what he had to say. The rest of the US was hearing information filtered by the MSM.
  - wwweston 10y ago
    Since state electoral votes are mostly awarded all-or-nothing, the electoral count can't tell you anything about how close an election was or wasn't. Looking at a number of swing states with significant numbers of electoral votes can, though. The margin of victory was just over 1% in Florida (29EV). It's less 1% in Pennsylvania (20EV) and Wisconsin (10EV). Michigan (16EV) was less than .25%. That's 75EV won by that thin a margin. Half that could have swung the election. (And yes, you can play this game the other way, but the only state Clinton won that was that closely contested was... New Hampshire, 4EV) The election was quite close. Trump's electoral victory was very thin. That's the state of affairs to be expected when the EC winner loses the popular vote.
- anjc 10y ago
  > he barely slid in a electoral vote disaster, despite the electoral vote being meant to be used against men like Trump Did you not pay attention to the election at all?
Natanael_L 10y ago
About 3 million votes LESS, winning only because of which particular states he got majority in? How's that a landslide victory?