User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:26:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Why would they award all their EC votes to the national popular vote winner, and not the CA popular vote winner?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:27:14 PM EDT
[#2]
By effectively bypassing the Electoral College, Koza hopes to force presidential candidates to campaign in all 50 states. "Right now the candidates spend 98 percent of their time and money in 15 states. So two-thirds of the states are totally ignored," groused Koza.
Koza is an idiot. Getting rid of the electoral college wont make candidates pay any attention to any more states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:27:53 PM EDT
[#3]
Wow, maybe my vote will be worth something for once.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:27:56 PM EDT
[#4]
Yep, their heads are going to fucking explode when we have a reverse GWB event and then they get the GOP candidate elected.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:31:09 PM EDT
[#5]
Does not matter.
The dems will simply register more prisoners, illegal aliens and dead people to vote. Like Cali is every gonna go Republican. (well, perhaps if Obama ran as one, but that is about it). Much love for the big Zero in Ca still. He has this state sewn up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:34:07 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Massachusetts is pushing the same thing, it's going to be epic! Yep, their heads are going to fucking explode when we have a reverse GWB event and then they get the GOP candidate elected.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:37:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Why not split the EC votes amongst the candidates based on popular vote (in Cali). Surely that's more representative of what people want. We could call it 'Democracy'.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:38:28 PM EDT
[#8]
As a non-Californian, this makes me happy.
Idiots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:38:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: They will try and change it if it looks like a GOP candidate is way ahead in the polls.Quoted: Massachusetts is pushing the same thing, it's going to be epic! Yep, their heads are going to fucking explode when we have a reverse GWB event and then they get the GOP candidate elected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:40:20 PM EDT
[#10]
That's full blown retarded.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:41:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They will try and change it if it looks like a GOP candidate is way ahead in the polls.
Quoted:
Massachusetts is pushing the same thing, it's going to be epic! Yep, their heads are going to fucking explode when we have a reverse GWB event and then they get the GOP candidate elected.
No shit. They will have an emergency session of the legislature on election night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:51:36 PM EDT
[#12]
Can a state just opt out of the EC?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:53:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Can a state just opt out of the EC? They can pass laws requiring the electoral college members to vote a certain way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:54:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can a state just opt out of the EC? They can pass laws requiring the electoral college members to vote a certain way. But the members still have to vote in some way based on the elections in their state as opposed to this bullshit, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:55:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Why would they award all their EC votes to the national popular vote winner, and not the CA popular vote winner? Because they think if enough other states join them, the big populace states (like, um... California) will have an even greater influence on the election beyond just their state. If they can con other states into linking their EC vote to the national-popular vote, the biggest states will magnify the effect of their own state's popular vote. They think in a close race, the popular vote nationally will tend to go Democrat (by hook or crook). So it's a gamble to try to steal close elections. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:58:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Can a state just opt out of the EC? I thought it was required, but I may be wrong. The Constitution says the states get so many votes based on population, the average non-idiot knows that the state's votes goes to the candidate that the state's residents voted for. I can't see how they can change that. It disfranchises everyone in the state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:58:21 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can a state just opt out of the EC? They can pass laws requiring the electoral college members to vote a certain way. But the members still have to vote in some way based on the elections in their state as opposed to this bullshit, right? I guess it depends on how you define "bypass." A State's electors can vote anyway they please, as pleases the state. A law stating they will always go the way of the national popular vote is perfectly Constitutional, as I read it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:01:25 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Why not split the EC votes amongst the candidates based on popular vote (in Cali). Surely that's more representative of what people want. We could call it 'Democracy'. That would be an epic win for conservatives. Even though Kali has been (D) for a long time, it's not a 70/30 split, much closer to 50/50. If we could pick up all those EC votes for the (R) team it would make Kali relevant again politically, instead of a lost cause to the fucking libtards every election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:01:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: the EC is supposed to be another check on the system. its so presidents arent elected by baltimore, nyc, chicago, la, and phili.Quoted: Quoted: Can a state just opt out of the EC? They can pass laws requiring the electoral college members to vote a certain way. But the members still have to vote in some way based on the elections in their state as opposed to this bullshit, right? " Under the Electoral College system, we do not elect the President and Vice President through a direct nation-wide vote. We select electors, who pledge their electoral vote to a specific candidate. In December, the electors of each state meet to vote for President and Vice President. The Presidential election is decided by the combined results of the 51 (the 50 states and the District of Columbia) state elections. It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your state's electoral votes. " |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:07:11 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Yep, their heads are going to fucking explode when we have a reverse GWB event and then they get the GOP candidate elected. Since we can expect California to always go DEM for POTUS in the near future, this can only favor the GOP. If the DEM candidate has the popular majority nationwide, he will receive the same DEM EC votes that he would have gotten anyway, if the GOP candidate is the national leader he will get the California EC votes that would have gone DEM. I guess the Republicans should send a Thank You card to Cali, because unless there is a conservative shift in California, this will never help the Donkey candidate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:10:06 PM EDT
[#21]
I'm glad that California is deciding to do their part to represent my interests in presidential elections.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:17:47 PM EDT
[#22]
It actually makes California Less Relevant as the Politicians can ignore California if the National vote is going their way.
Impeach Obama for the Good of the Wet Lands.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:27:12 PM EDT
[#23]
With California's passage of the legislation, the National Popular Vote now has 132 of the 270 electoral votes to circumvent the Electoral College system. It will not take effect until enough states sign on and pass legislation to equal 270.
Sounds like this doesn't mean much. Yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:28:28 PM EDT
[#24]
Indeed. This will give every minority party vote in every state real weight, as - even if their vote has little effect in their own state - it could have an effect on the large electoral prize that is California. Essentially, Massachusetts republicans will be voting more for California's electoral votes than their own states.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:30:32 PM EDT
[#25]
It's going to be hilarious when a recount in Texas changes the award of California's electoral votes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:32:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would they award all their EC votes to the national popular vote winner, and not the CA popular vote winner? Because they think if enough other states join them, the big populace states (like, um... California) will have an even greater influence on the election beyond just their state. If they can con other states into linking their EC vote to the national-popular vote, the biggest states will magnify the effect of their own state's popular vote. They think in a close race, the popular vote nationally will tend to go Democrat (by hook or crook). So it's a gamble to try to steal close elections. There is a move to pass similar legislation in WV, at the time I read about it late last year about 20 some state were contemplating this legislation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:35:28 PM EDT
[#27]
i wonder if its constitutionally legal and if the action will bring about a constitutional crisis?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:37:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Can a state just opt out of the EC? No, they can only decide how they are chosen (and that clause does not state that States can decide how electors may vote once chosen; it takes some mental gymnastics to justify that). The Electoral College is a constitutionally created entity and not one created by the individual States. The intent is for the President to be chosen by a small, elite body of men who would deliberate before casting their votes so as to insulate the President from popular demands and ensure quality electees while also ensuring that States have some say in the process, albeit indirectly, rather than just a few States or none at all dominating everything. Of course we have drifted far from the intent and have what essentially amounts to a popular election. This initiative is designed to more effectively make the election of the President popular by essentially negating the Electoral College, although this still requires most States including all of the big ones to be on board with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:39:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can a state just opt out of the EC? They can pass laws requiring the electoral college members to vote a certain way. But the members still have to vote in some way based on the elections in their state as opposed to this bullshit, right? I guess it depends on how you define "bypass." A State's electors can vote anyway they please, as pleases the state. A law stating they will always go the way of the national popular vote is perfectly Constitutional, as I read it. And how is that? The Constitution does not grant States the power to determine how Electors vote, only how Electors are chosen, nor do Electors serve at the pleausre of the State or its people. The practice of vote-pledging and not having Electors run in their own name or individually has done nothing but confuse the issue and give wrong impressions and is a questionable practice, even if it may in most cases be technically constitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:39:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Yep, their heads are going to fucking explode when we have a reverse GWB event and then they get the GOP candidate elected. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:40:04 PM EDT
[#31]
I am wondering if this will make it easier for 'Acorn' type outfits to rig influence an election?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:43:08 PM EDT
[#32]
and when it does they'll back-pedal so fast...ala Massachusetts |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:45:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can a state just opt out of the EC? They can pass laws requiring the electoral college members to vote a certain way. But the members still have to vote in some way based on the elections in their state as opposed to this bullshit, right? I guess it depends on how you define "bypass." A State's electors can vote anyway they please, as pleases the state. A law stating they will always go the way of the national popular vote is perfectly Constitutional, as I read it. And how is that? The Constitution does not grant States the power to determine how Electors vote, only how Electors are chosen. All the Constitution has to say on the subject: Article 2, Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Amendment 12: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate... As I read it, if a state chooses to appoint electors based on a requirement for them to vote the way the popular vote went, it is their prerogative. There is nothing in there about secret ballots, or independence from state political coercion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:48:23 PM EDT
[#34]
Hell yes, that puts CA in play, if a conservative can win the majority vote. At least that way we have a change of winning CA's 55 electoral votes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:48:24 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, their heads are going to fucking explode when we have a reverse GWB event and then they get the GOP candidate elected. Since we can expect California to always go DEM for POTUS in the near future, this can only favor the GOP. If the DEM candidate has the popular majority nationwide, he will receive the same DEM EC votes that he would have gotten anyway, if the GOP candidate is the national leader he will get the California EC votes that would have gone DEM. I guess the Republicans should send a Thank You card to Cali, because unless there is a conservative shift in California, this will never help the Donkey candidate. Thanks, I was reading down the page to make sure nobody pointed this out yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:50:19 PM EDT
[#36]
The Electorial College is doing what the framers of the Constitution intended. The forefathers didn't want the more populous states run rough-shod over less populous states. The goal of Calif is to influence in the elections in a bigger way, but when all of the states do the samething, that pretty negates any advantages.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:54:21 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can a state just opt out of the EC? They can pass laws requiring the electoral college members to vote a certain way. But the members still have to vote in some way based on the elections in their state as opposed to this bullshit, right? I guess it depends on how you define "bypass." A State's electors can vote anyway they please, as pleases the state. A law stating they will always go the way of the national popular vote is perfectly Constitutional, as I read it. And how is that? The Constitution does not grant States the power to determine how Electors vote, only how Electors are chosen. All the Constitution has to say on the subject: Article 2, Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Amendment 12: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate... As I read it, if a state chooses to appoint electors based on a requirement for them to vote the way the popular vote went, it is their prerogative. There is nothing in there about secret ballots, or independence from state political coercion. It does not grant the States the power to coerce Electors into voting a particular way; if the power is not granted, it does not exist. It is also inane to state that the power to appoint or choose the manner of selection of an elector or legislator or anything sharing the characteristics common between the two entails the power to controul or determine how a person shall vote or choose to act. Also, the current practices regarding vote pledging and the like raises tons of questions, besides undermining the purpose of the EC. What if a Presidential candidate on the ballot with no Electoral candidates pledged to vote for him wins the election? Given that Electors pledge to vote for a ticket, what if Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates from different parties win the popular vote, respectively? A State cannot appoint two sets of Electors. If only one slate is chosen, how is it determined what that slate will be? And this is for starters. Personally, I find the entire practice to be extremely repugnant and would favour a constitutional amendment that clarified the purpose of the EC and strengthened it as an institution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:55:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can a state just opt out of the EC? They can pass laws requiring the electoral college members to vote a certain way. But the members still have to vote in some way based on the elections in their state as opposed to this bullshit, right? I guess it depends on how you define "bypass." A State's electors can vote anyway they please, as pleases the state. A law stating they will always go the way of the national popular vote is perfectly Constitutional, as I read it. And how is that? The Constitution does not grant States the power to determine how Electors vote, only how Electors are chosen. All the Constitution has to say on the subject: Article 2, Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Amendment 12: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate... As I read it, if a state chooses to appoint electors based on a requirement for them to vote the way the popular vote went, it is their prerogative. There is nothing in there about secret ballots, or independence from state political coercion. It does not grant the States the power to coerce Electors into voting a particular way; if the power is not granted, it does not exist. It is also inane to state that the power to appoint or choose the manner of selection of an elector or legislator or anything sharing the characteristics common between the two entails the power to controul or determine how a person shall vote or choose to act. Also, the current practices regarding vote pledging and the like raises tons of questions, besides undermining the purpose of the EC. What if a Presidential candidate on the ballot with no Electoral candidates pledged to vote for him wins the election? Given that Electors pledge to vote for a ticket, what if Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates from different parties win the popular vote, respectively? A State cannot appoint two sets of Electors. If only one slate is chosen, how is it determined what that slate will be? And this is for starters. Personally, I find the entire practice to be extremely repugnant and would favour a constitutional amendment that clarified the purpose of the EC and strengthened it as an institution. yes it does The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:56:35 PM EDT
[#39]
There may be instances where the Popular Vote is uncertain even after the date for the President to be sworn in and in that case the electors in California may go uncounted.
Impeach Obama for the Good of the Little People.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:58:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
The Electorial College is doing what the framers of the Constitution intended. The forefathers didn't want the more populous states run rough-shod over less populous states. The goal of Calif is to influence in the elections in a bigger way, but when all of the states do the samething, that pretty negates any advantages. That was really only a secondary consideration. The primary purpose was to make the President somewhat neutral, so that his source of power was neither the States [represented originally by the Senate (currently unrepresented), which was structured to be the primary means to achieve the goal you mention] nor the people, which is important from the perspective of checks and balances, which are the hallmark of mixed government, which is what the United States was meant to have under the Constitution (in this case a federal variation on the concept). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 5:01:54 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can a state just opt out of the EC? They can pass laws requiring the electoral college members to vote a certain way. But the members still have to vote in some way based on the elections in their state as opposed to this bullshit, right? I guess it depends on how you define "bypass." A State's electors can vote anyway they please, as pleases the state. A law stating they will always go the way of the national popular vote is perfectly Constitutional, as I read it. And how is that? The Constitution does not grant States the power to determine how Electors vote, only how Electors are chosen. All the Constitution has to say on the subject: Article 2, Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Amendment 12: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate... As I read it, if a state chooses to appoint electors based on a requirement for them to vote the way the popular vote went, it is their prerogative. There is nothing in there about secret ballots, or independence from state political coercion. It does not grant the States the power to coerce Electors into voting a particular way; if the power is not granted, it does not exist. It is also inane to state that the power to appoint or choose the manner of selection of an elector or legislator or anything sharing the characteristics common between the two entails the power to controul or determine how a person shall vote or choose to act. Also, the current practices regarding vote pledging and the like raises tons of questions, besides undermining the purpose of the EC. What if a Presidential candidate on the ballot with no Electoral candidates pledged to vote for him wins the election? Given that Electors pledge to vote for a ticket, what if Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates from different parties win the popular vote, respectively? A State cannot appoint two sets of Electors. If only one slate is chosen, how is it determined what that slate will be? And this is for starters. Personally, I find the entire practice to be extremely repugnant and would favour a constitutional amendment that clarified the purpose of the EC and strengthened it as an institution. yes it does
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, norprohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or tothe people. Said clause has nothing to do with the Electoral College, which is specifically addressed seperately. The States would not have any power in this area (such as appointing Electors) without there being a Constitution and a clause hich creates this body. The States and their governments would still exist if the Constitution or EC did not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 5:22:29 PM EDT
[#42]
The lawsuits over this change will be epic. Every voter in California, regardless of political persuasion, will potentially be disenfranchised. The votes of the people of California will be diluted by the votes of the citizens of every other state.
And we keep moving closer to the day when secession will be a very real and very serious question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 5:33:50 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Looks like it doesn't mean shit till more morans try and turn our Republic into a Democracy.With California's passage of the legislation, the National Popular Vote now has 132 of the 270 electoral votes to circumvent the Electoral College system. It will not take effect until enough states sign on and pass legislation to equal 270. Sounds like this doesn't mean much. Yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 5:46:43 PM EDT
[#44]
So what if the California delegation just ignores this? Say GWB ran again and won the popular election but was 50 electoral votes shy and they voted dem anyway?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 5:49:14 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Here is a possibility.Does not matter. The dems will simply register more prisoners, illegal aliens and dead people to vote. Like Cali is every gonna go Republican. (well, perhaps if Obama ran as one, but that is about it). Much love for the big Zero in Ca still. He has this state sewn up. Republicans haven't won California in a while. A republican is landsliding in the west, loses California of course and is landsliding in the south, doing well in the midwest and the northeast. He loses the electoral vote when California is counted on the dem side, but he wins the popular vote and California that had voted majority democrat now has to give all of their electoral votes to the Republican making him the winner. All the worst democrats in California die from head explosions giving Republicans the advantage for years to come. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 5:55:13 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Wow, maybe my vote will be worth something for once. Cool. Population centers are the last bastions of common sense left in the country. Maybe we are saved!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 6:11:19 PM EDT
[#47]
They would be better off distributing the electoral voted based on a candidated proportion of the votes withing a given state. So if a candidate wins 60%-40%, then the winning candidate gets 60% of the electoral votes and the losing candidate gets 40% of the electoral votes. If it doesnt divide evenly then the extra vote can go to the winner.
That way every vote really does count and every state suddenly becomes more relevant - especially ones like Commiefornia. -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 6:14:08 PM EDT
[#48]
With California's passage of the legislation, the National Popular Vote now has 132 of the 270 electoral votes to circumvent the Electoral College system. It will not take effect until enough states sign on and pass legislation to equal 270. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 6:14:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: They would be better off distributing the electoral voted based on a candidated proportion of the votes withing a given state. So if a candidate wins 60%-40%, then the winning candidate gets 60% of the electoral votes and the losing candidate gets 40% of the electoral votes. If it doesnt divide evenly then the extra vote can go to the winner. That way every vote really does count and every state suddenly becomes more relevant - especially ones like Commiefornia. -K That's too much like democracy. You're going to piss off the EC defenders, even if you are right. Most of them don't live in states like NY or CA where every single conservative vote is pissed away to no avail every election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2011 6:15:47 PM EDT
[#50]
Senate Elections 2010:
Majority party Minority party Leader Harry Reid Mitch McConnell Party Democratic Republican Seats after 53 .47 Popular vote 33,883,538 37,057,491 Just sayin' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
