US Politics

[TruthSeeker]

In the article that the OP is based on, Trump doesn't say anything about "Mexicans" or "California". He said millions of people voted illegally. Who knows if he is correct or not? A lot of college students in the USA vote illegally due to their dual residences, i.e. (1) their college dorm or apartment precinct and (2) the precinct where they live with parents when not at college. Voter rolls are notoriously rife with dead people, people who have moved and are registered in other places, ineligible felons in some states, and non-citizens who are either documented or undocumented. But really, since Trump wasn't under oath when he tweeted, his free speech rights allow him to say what he said, whether or not it is true. Anyone who believes what politicians say, anyway, is delusional.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I lived in Upstate New York for many years. It was very frustrating that my conservative vote never counted at the state level (i.e. for President, Senator, Governor, etc.), because the New York City vote always dominated the New York State popular vote. Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes by congressional district, and by statewide vote for the two votes that go with their Senators. That is why Trump won one of Maine's four electoral votes and Hillary won three. If Electoral votes in all states were apportioned by Congregational District, which have close to equal population numbers by design, then the result might seem more fair. Still, however, Trump probably would have won since his party, the Republicans, won a majority of the Congressional Districts and the Senate races as well.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

This Trump guy looks like Pakistani politician every god damn thing he does is controversial

 

[TruthSeeker]

This Trump guy looks like Pakistani politician every god damn thing he does is controversial

What he does is controversial only because he loves controversy, the more the better.

 

[ultron]

Especially given that California is a solidly Democratic state

Before 1992 California was solid Republican. After deportation by Trump, California will again be solid Republican.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

So basically Trump might have won a few states due to illegal voters, right?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Before 1992 California was solid Republican. After deportation by Trump, California will again be solid Republican.

Instead of joining Canada with Oregon and Washington, perhaps California will join Mexico. That way California taxpayers could pay for the welfare of Mexican children, insitu.

 

[ultron]

So basically Trump might have won a few states due to illegal voters, right?

Illegal Mexicans vote for Democrats.

Non Hispanic white used to be nearly 60% in California in 1990. Now non Hispanic white is below 40% in California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Hispanic_whites

That's why non Hispanic whites will get rid of illegal Mexicans in California and take back California.

 

[TruthSeeker]

So basically Trump might have won a few states due to illegal voters, right?

Yes, of course.

 

[LA se Karachi]

So basically Trump might have won a few states due to illegal voters, right?

No.

Instead of joining Canada with Oregon and Washington, perhaps California will join Mexico. That way California taxpayers could pay for the welfare of Mexican children, insitu.

We have no plans to leave the union. And even in some crazy hypothetical scenario in which we did, we are the 6th largest economy in the world, we wouldn't need to join Mexico or Canada.

Illegal Mexicans vote for Democrats.

Illegals don't vote, period.

Non Hispanic white used to be nearly 60% in California in 1990. Now non Hispanic white is below 40% in California.

Mostly due to legal immigration and higher birthrates among Hispanics. Not everyone who isn't white is an illegal, idiot.

Before 1992 California was solid Republican. After deportation by Trump, California will again be solid Republican.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988

It was indeed solidly Republican in Presidential elections before 1992. Many other states like West Virginia were also solidly Democratic before 2000, but they aren't any longer. The parties have evolved somewhat, and people have changed their allegiances.

And no, California won't become Republican again whether or not illegal immigrants are deported from the state. Younger people of all ethnic groups in California favor Democrats. I also know of many moderate and suburban Republicans that voted for Clinton because they found Trump to be unacceptable. As long as the Republican Party continues to nominate people like him and continues to move to right, their appeal will be very limited out here.

 

[LA se Karachi]

It is said that the further away from California's capital city -- Sacramento -- the less popular the decisions of the legislature and governor. Essentially, Californians often feels Sacramento and city dwellers have a grossly disproportionate influence on how the state is managed.

I have never heard that here before. Sacramento itself doesn't have an out-sized influence on California politics, and proximity to it doesn't make their decisions more popular. That's not true at all. People do have problems with decisions it makes, but it breaks down along political lines. In fact, the regions closest to Sacramento (the Central Valley and Sacramento itself) are the ones who often complain about their decisions given that the vast majority of Californians live along the coast. Also, almost all Californians are urban or suburban dwellers.

This only further reinforce the impression that the Electoral College is a vital component of the US election process. US, not the rest of the world.

Whatever you might think about the electoral college, I only want to say that it is absolutely incorrect to say (as that dishonest article does) that California alone provided the margin of victory. It makes no sense to separate it from the rest of the country, because one could do the same with New York, Illinois, Massachusetts (or some other combination of states) and say the exact same thing.

 

[gambit]

Whatever you might think about the electoral college, I only want to say that it is absolutely incorrect to say (as that dishonest article does) that California alone provided the margin of victory. It makes no sense to separate it from the rest of the country, because one could do the same with New York, Illinois, Massachusetts (or some other combination of states) and say the exact same thing.

The point of that article is clear: That via popular votes Hillary Clinton would be President.

But equally valid is the point that since there are inevitable disparities in population concentration and wealth, and since wealth always means favorable influence in politics, there should be a compensatory device to that condition. Since the US is a federation, it made it easier for the Founders to come up with a device.

I pointed this out before, that every four yrs we have a national discussion on the EC, every four yrs there were always calls to abolish it, which would require a Constitutional Convention, and every time the 'nays' always got out-argued by the 'yeas'. The American public have repeatedly spoken 'yeas' and I predict the EC will be with US for the next hundred yrs.

 

[LA se Karachi]

The point of that article is clear: That via popular votes Hillary Clinton would be President.

Well that part is true, obviously. What it also said was that California alone was responsible for her victory in the popular vote, and nothing could be more misleading. That's the only thing I took issue with:


"But a closer look at the election returns show that Hillary's lead in the popular vote is entirely due to her oversized margin of victory in uber-liberal California."

"The only reason that Clinton is beating Trump in the overall popular vote is that California gave Clinton a huge margin of victory — which currently stands at 61% to 33%.

The thing is, California is a very populous and very liberal state — so far, it has counted more than 10.7 million ballots. As a result, California alone is dumping vast numbers of votes into the Clinton column — where she currently has 3 million more than Trump."


In the popular vote, everyone's vote counts the same, whether Californian or otherwise. California (or other states) cannot be separated from other states when it comes to the popular vote. Because if one (misleadingly) does, one could do the same with New York, Illinois, Massachusetts (or some other combination of states) and say the exact same thing. This game could go on forever. Not to mention that she received far more votes from states other than California, including millions from states she lost.

I pointed this out before, that every four yrs we have a national discussion on the EC, every four yrs there were always calls to abolish it, which would require a Constitutional Convention, and every time the 'nays' always got out-argued by the 'yeas'. The American public have repeatedly spoken 'yeas' and I predict the EC will be with US for the next hundred yrs.

Well like I said, I don't want to get into a debate on the electoral college. I have my thoughts on the matter. But ultimately, it determines who takes office.

With that said, the states themselves actually decide how to allocate their electoral votes. And if enough states decided to allocate all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, a constitutional convention wouldn't be necessary, because the effect would be the same. Many states have already passed such measures that would take effect only when the total amount of those states' electoral votes add up to 270 or more.

 

[ultron]

The point of that article is clear: That via popular votes Hillary Clinton would be President.

It would depend on the system. Even if the US uses a nationwide popular vote system, it does not mean Hillary would win based on her popular vote plurality.

Under the Russia and Ukraine system of majority winner, a candidate must win a majority > 50% of votes to win. Hillary does not reach that threshold and therefore would not win under the Russia and Ukraine system.

Maybe there are countries that use the plurality winner popular vote system, but I do not know of any.

IMO, if the US is to switch to a nationwide popular vote system, regardless of what sort of system to adopt, the US must have 0 illegals. Because illegals muddy the water in such a voting system, the US cannot adopt it if there are illegals in the US voting in elections. It would not be fair to voters. Unless the US deports all illegals, the US would not switch to a popular vote system.

Already in this election many illegals in California got caught trying to vote. Without doubt, many illegals did vote and were not caught. California has a Democrat governor and therefore no voter ID laws.

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-over-40-illegals-arrested-for-trying-to-vote-in-california/34639/

 

[Zibago]

Illegal Mexicans vote for Democrats.

Non Hispanic white used to be nearly 60% in California in 1990. Now non Hispanic white is below 40% in California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Hispanic_whites

That's why non Hispanic whites will get rid of illegal Mexicans in California and take back California.

Why are trump supporters under the illusion that all non whites are illegal?
Illegals makeup at best 2 million of US population while Latinos makeup 50 million of US population according to some estimates